By whom and when was scripture written?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 1 2005, 06:39 PM']This is my second response to this particular post.  I walked away from the first because it would have resulted into something that you would have wanted...
turning the attention toward you and away from the main point...God.

You accuse me of the "either-or" fallacy..(your words).

True.
And why?
[/quote]

Response:

Because your question does not allow any degrees of difference. Your question demonstrates this. You asked do you believe that God inspired Genesis on not? Answer Yes or No.

That's the either -or fallacy in a nutshell!

Providentissimus deus tells us that:

"Hence, because the Holy Ghost employed men as His instruments, we cannot therefore say that it was these inspired instruments who, perchance, have fallen into error, and not the primary author. For, by supernatural power, He so moved and impelled them to write-He was so present to them-that the things which He ordered, and those only, they, first, rightly understood, then willed faithfully to write down, and finally expressed in apt words and with infallible truth. Otherwise, it could not be said that He was the Author of the entire Scripture."

and,

" For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical, are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true."

But ,as we have shown contradiction exists in scripture. In the case of a contradiction, either one or both of the alternatives are in error. So if contradiction exists, "inerrency" does not.

Pope Leo XIII and others were wrong on this point.

[LittleLes]

True.
And why?
Faith. Its the most logical place to start.
I believe in God. I hope in God. I love God.
All because of faith.
To believe is to accept as true. We believe something when we give our definite and unquestioning assent.
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Does it matter to you whether or not what you "give (your) definite and unquestioning assent" to is true or not? I does to me!

If it doesn't matter to you, what is the fundamental difference between your giving assent to Catholicism and a Muslim giving assent to Islam?

[LittleLes]

Moving along with the "who and when" of the writing of scripture, we need to determine the approximate dating of the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt. Aside from the Old Testament, there is very little evidence to support the Exodus account.

Certainly Jews had been settled in Egypt as throughout the MidEast for some time. In fact, it is thought that the Pharaoh named Akhenaten (more later) had a Israelite mother named Tiye.

Using the Bible, we have two conflicting dates for the Exodus.

Ex 1:11 describes forced labor of the Israelites building the cities of Pithom and Raamses. This is placed at the time of the Pharaoh Ramses who had a reputation as a great builder. He reigned from 1290 BC to 1224 BC. Thus the Exodus would be dated as occurring sometime during his reign but not earlier.

On the other hand, 1 Kings 6:1 reports that the Temple constructed by King Solomon was built "480 years from the Exodus" in the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Solomon lived from 970 to 928 B.C. so, if we take his reign averaging approximately 950 BC. and add the 480 years, we arrive at a date for the Exodus as being about 1430 B.C.

Thus we seem to have a contradiction. It is, of course, difficult to maintain the claim of biblical inerrancy when such exists. But if these biblical books merely report legend, then problems with dating become understandable.

[Quietfire]

Evidently someone didnt read my post.
Im not surprised by that really, I didnt think you would.

First, you make my point in your immediate post. minus of course, your personal remark at the end.
Then, you take my words out of context and assume that because I give my assent to the teachings of the Church(divine faith), then I give my assent to something like 2+2=5.(human faith).

I thought you knew the difference. I thought wrong on that, eh?
Guess I was proven right (in reference to human faith)


Pax.

Edited July 2, 2005 by Quietfire

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 2 2005, 11:05 AM']Evidently someone didnt read my post.
Im not surprised by that really, I didnt think you would.

First, you make my point in your immediate post.  minus of course, your personal remark at the end.
Then, you take my words out of context and assume that because I give my assent to the teachings of the Church(divine faith), then I give my assent to something like 2+2=5.(human faith).

I thought you knew the difference.  I thought wrong on that, eh?
Guess I was proven right (in reference to human faith)
Pax.
[right][snapback]629978[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

I think what your post proves is that you haven't investigated the reasonableness of what you believe. Did you just select Catholicism at random?

[LittleLes]

1. The Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament which tells the national epic of the Jewish people, was the work of several writers.

2. The earliest date of its composition is 922 B.C., about 300 to 500 years after the purported exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.

3. While there is little evidence besides the account in the Pentateuch to support the Exodus story - it is possible that this was a simple migration - the two possible dates given in the Old Testament are c1430 B.C. ( 1 King 6:1) or c1200 B.C. (Ex 1:11). Combined, this gives a putative date range of 1430 to 1200 B.C. for the exodus.

4. Traditionally, Moses is supposed to have led the Israelites from slavery in Egypt to the "Promised Land." But there is little evidence besides scripture that the Jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians.

5. Regarding the person named Moses in the biblical account, was this a real or legendary figure?

6. Consider the following:

(a) Akhenaten (also called Amenhotep IV) was an Egyption pharoah who was in power from about 1367 to 1333 B.C. (depending on the reference used). So we have the correct date range. His wife was Nefertiti.

(b) Akhenaten's father was Amenhotep III and his mother was Trye, said to be a Jewess.

© It is claimed that those in power threatened the life of the child since they did not want anyone other than a member of the royal family ( both parents had to be of royal lineage) to succeed as pharaoh, and he had to sent to a place of relative obscurity.

(d) Akhenaten was unique in that he insisted on the practice of strict monotheism, the worship of only one god, named Aten.

(e) It is claimed that Akhenaten was eventualy banished by those favoring the worship of the traditional Egyptian gods, and replaced by his cousin Smenkhkare.

Question: Could Akhenaten have been the model for Moses?

[Quietfire]

Did I select at random?

Should I even answer the question?
Eh, why bother.

The question was simple.



So your answer is no then, huh?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jul 3 2005, 12:15 PM']Did I select at random?

Should I even answer the question?
Eh, why bother.

The question was simple.
So your answer is no then, huh?
[right][snapback]630659[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

My answer is:

(1) Exodus was written many generations after the events it describes, not by witnesses to the events or even those "within living memory" of the events.

(2) There is no independent evidence confirming the events described by Exodus.

(3) In creating a national epic it is not at all uncommon to rely on legends and embellish accounts.

(4) Akhenaten was a real figure living during the Exodus time frame whose life events closely parallel those described of Moses.

Therefore, it is highly possible that his story formed the basis for the legend of Moses.

Exodus 11:3 claims: "Moreover, the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants and in the sight of the people. " Yet there is no record in any Egyptian records of Moses.

But one can't prove a negative. I can't "prove" that Saint Peter didn't have a halo or never lived in Brooklyn. So I can only have such certitude as the nature of the thing allows.

LittleLes

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 3 2005, 06:58 PM']RESPONSE:

My answer is:

(1) Exodus was written many generations after the events it describes, not by witnesses to the events or even those "within living memory" of the events.

(2) There is no independent evidence confirming the events described by Exodus.

(3) In creating a national epic it is not at all uncommon to rely on legends and embellish accounts.

(4) Akhenaten was a real figure living during the Exodus time frame whose life events closely parallel those described of Moses.

Therefore, it is highly possible that his story formed the basis for the legend of Moses.

Exodus 11:3 claims: "Moreover, the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh's servants and in the sight of the people. " Yet there is no record in any Egyptian records  of  Moses.

But one can't prove a negative. I can't "prove" that Saint Peter didn't have a halo or never lived in Brooklyn. So I can only have such certitude as the nature of the thing allows.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]630887[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Evidently the LittleLes parrot/bot is incapable of answering simple yes or no questions, and is only capable of parroting words from the modernist/revisionist party line.

You've basically admitted you have no evidence and can't prove your case - all you've done is once again offered a bunch of unproven assertions and hypothesis with no concrete evidence to back them up.

The idea that Moses is really Akhenaten is absurd and unsubstantiated. There is really very little in common between these two figures. Akhenaten was the Egyption Pharoah, the enemy of the Hebrews. Why would they turn him into their leader who liberated them from the tyranny of the Pharoah? Quite a stretch! This hypothesis, like all the others you offer as "fact" takes as its starting point the assumption that the Biblical story must be false.

As historian Dr. Warren H. Carroll writes:

[quote]There is now general agreement among scholars that the Exodus took place during the thirteenth century (1300-1200) B.C.; former support for the earlier date, around the time of Akhenaten or even before, has dwindled away.  The evidence of the building of Pithom and Ramses in the first quarter of the centry (1300-1275), together with the stele of the Pharoah Merneptah (c. 1220 B.C.) locating Israel outside Egypt -- but as a wandering nation, not yet settled--and the remarkable accumalation of archeological evidence indicating a destructive conquest of Central Palestine shortly before 1200 B.C., unite to provide a convincing case.  Unless we do drastic violence to the text of the Book od Exodus, a very substantial time must be allotted to the Exodus events--time for a whole generation to grow old and die in the wilderness.  . . . Therefore the most probable hypothesis is that the Exodus occurred during the the first half of the long reign of Ramses II, about 1275 B.C.[/quote].

The Egyption Pharoahs reigned as god-kings, and of course after Pharoah Ramses' humiliation at the Exodus of the Hebrews, it is natural that he would not wish this to be recorded for posterity.

[LittleLes]

"There is now general agreement among scholars that the Exodus took place during the thirteenth century (1300-1200) B.C.; former support for the earlier date, around the time of Akhenaten or even before, has dwindled away. The evidence of the building of Pithom and Ramses in the first quarter of the centry (1300-1275), together with the stele of the Pharoah Merneptah (c. 1220 B.C.) locating Israel outside Egypt -- but as a wandering nation, not yet settled--and the remarkable accumalation of archeological evidence indicating a destructive conquest of Central Palestine shortly before 1200 B.C., unite to provide a convincing case. Unless we do drastic violence to the text of the Book od Exodus, a very substantial time must be allotted to the Exodus events--time for a whole generation to grow old and die in the wilderness. . . .
Warren Carroll

RESPONSE:

You neglect to mention that Warren Carroll is the founder of the very conservative Christendom University and is an strong apologist for the Catholic Church's version of history, which, not too suprisingly ,supports the Church's "party line."

But lets look at what he admits.

"Therefore the most probable hypothesis is that the Exodus occurred during the the first half of the long reign of Ramses II, about 1275 B.C."

If Carroll is correct, he is evidencing that 1 Kings 6.1 is clearly in error although claimed to be an inspired writing. 1 Kings 6:1 puts the date of the Exodus at about 1430 B.C., as I previously pointed out.

"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD." Do the math!

But you have overlooked the obvious. The biblical account was written between 922 and 722 B.C., much after the fact so the exact date of Akhenaten's reign is not really the issue. Only that the general facts of his story were remembered in the 922 - 722 B.C. time frame and included when the Pentatauch was written by the J and E source.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

Where is this going? LittleLes, YOU'VE neglected to mention that this whole Moses/Akhenaten thing is Freudian.

So, are we to believe a Theologian, like Carroll? Or are we to believe an atheist like Freud? Who has more credibility? (hint: It ain't Freud.)

Come on LittleLes, all you are doing is parroting the Freudian view put forth in [i]Moses and Monotheism.[/i] Give me a break. (Apparently, Wikipedia has become your new Catholic Encyclopedia. It isn't definitive.)

I think that this thread has run its course. All this is, is you spewing your erroneous viewpoint, and spamming the board. Occasionally, you'll get a response, but for the most part it is spam. And not even scholarly. That is why no one is engaging you.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 4 2005, 08:05 AM']Where is this going?  LittleLes, YOU'VE neglected to mention that this whole Moses/Akhenaten thing is Freudian.

So, are we to believe a Theologian, like Carroll?  Or are we to believe an atheist like Freud?  Who has more credibility?  (hint:  It ain't Freud.)

Come on LittleLes, all you are doing is parroting the Freudian view put forth in [i]Moses and Monotheism.[/i]  Give me a break.  (Apparently, Wikipedia has become your new Catholic Encyclopedia.  It isn't definitive.)

I think that this thread has run its course.  All this is, is you spewing your erroneous viewpoint, and spamming the board.  Occasionally, you'll get a response, but for the most part it is spam.  And not even scholarly.  That is why no one is engaging you.
[right][snapback]631305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

1. Indeed, Freud had wide interests and wrote on a variety of religious matters and other subjects. Your real question should be whether he and other writers were correct in their hypotheses.

2. Warren Carroll is not a theologian. He is a historian and a former CIA employee. (Which reminds me. I owe him an e-mail to see how his latest volume is coming along).

3. No, the tread has hardly begun. We have to trace the question of by whom and when the various books of the Bible were written. We've only been dealing with the Pentateuch so far, but I plan to start book six, Joshua next.

4. Unless, of course, someone, such as yourself, is uncomfortable in dealing with the literary analysis and textual criticism of scripture and closes down the thread. On the other hand, Pope Pius XII was quite enthusiastic about such textual criticism. (See his 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu") As am I.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 10:29 AM']RESPONSE:

1.  Indeed,  Freud had wide interests and wrote on  a variety of religious matters and other subjects. Your  real question should be whether he and other writers were correct in their hypotheses.

2. Warren Carroll is not a theologian. He is a historian and a former CIA employee.  (Which reminds me. I owe him an e-mail to see how his latest volume is coming along).

3. No, the tread has hardly begun. We have to trace the question of by whom and when the various books of the Bible were written. We've only been dealing with the Pentateuch so far, but I plan to start book six, Joshua next.

4. Unless, of course, someone, such as yourself, is uncomfortable in dealing with the literary analysis and textual criticism of scripture  and closes down the thread.   On the other hand, Pope Pius XII was quite enthusiastic about such textual criticism. (See his 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu") As am I.
[right][snapback]631339[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. Freud is not a solid commentary on Catholic or Christian thought.

2. Who cares.....he has more credibility than Freud, on this matter. Incidentally, I have met Warren Carroll. He is one of the most informed Catholics I have ever met. Incidentally, he is a Theologian. He has a doctorate in History, which he has specialized in Church history. Time to rethink your position.

3. Whatever....you are talking to yourself. You are the only one who doesn't see that.

4. I am completely comfortable discussing Scripture. I am not all that interested in discussing with you. As I have said, if you will engage in a scholarly and honest manner, then I will re-engage. I have said that all along. We have been through all of this before. You are rehashing your issues. Divino Afflante Spiritu? We discussed that months ago. We proved you wrong months ago.

Oh, I know, your party-line......"You have proven nothing" and "Following the party line is not proof." Whatever.......you are predictable and not even worth the effort. Out.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 09:29 AM']
4. Unless, of course, someone, such as yourself, is uncomfortable in dealing with the literary analysis and textual criticism of scripture  and closes down the thread.  On the other hand, Pope Pius XII was quite enthusiastic about such textual criticism. (See his 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu") As am I.
[right][snapback]631339[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Nice back-handed way to besmirch anyone who might actually close the thread for any reason Littleles.


Just one more reason.

[LittleLes]

Moving along then with the authorship and time of writing of Joshua, the sixth book of the Bible.

Tradition has it that Joshua, the successor to Moses, wrote this sixth book, but modern holders of the Documentary Hyposthesis credit the Deuteronomist writing about 722 - 622 B.C.

There are a number of problems with authorship by Joshua. For example:

(1) As with Deuteronomy 34:5-9 dealing extensively with the death of Moses, Joshua 24:29-31 deals with the death and burial of Joshua. It doesn't seem very likely that either wrote these accounts.

(2) Joshua 11:21 is guilty of an anachronism: " At that time Joshua came and wiped out the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel; Joshua utterly destroyed them with their towns"

The problem here is that the Judah and Israel, the northern and southern kingdoms, were created after the death of King David long after Joshua.

(3) There are 13 instances of the use of the phrase "...to this day" in Joshua. For example: 4:9 "they are there to this day." 5:9 "called Gilgal to this day," 7:26 "to this day the name of that place is called the Valley of Ashor," and 8:28 "a heap of ruins as it is to this day." etc.

The use of "to this day" implies that the account is refering to something happening in the past. Not a current account.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 4 2005, 10:04 AM']
  Who cares.....he has more credibility than Freud, on this matter.  Incidentally, I have met Warren Carroll.  He is one of the most informed Catholics I have ever met.  Incidentally, he is a Theologian.  He has a doctorate in History, which he has specialized in Church history.  Time to rethink your position.


[/quote]

RESPONSE:

There are a number of biographies of Dr. Warren Carroll on the web. As far as I can see, none claim that he was ever a theologian or trained in theology. For example:

"Warren is considered a leader in the restoration of orthodox Catholic liberal arts education in America. He started Christendom College in 1977 with 26 students and $50,000 in the bank from a rented building in Triangle. He remained president until 1985 and served as history department chairman until his retirement in 2002. "

Please present your evidence to support your claim that Dr. Warren Carroll is also a theologian.

He's a very orthodox Catholic historian, not a theologian. He writes history from the orthodox Catholic perspective.

Littleles

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 03:45 PM']RESPONSE:

There are a number of biographies of Dr. Warren Carroll on the web. As far as I can see, none claim that he was ever a theologian or trained in theology. For example:

"Warren is considered a leader in the restoration of orthodox Catholic liberal arts education in America. He started Christendom College in 1977 with 26 students and $50,000 in the bank from a rented building in Triangle. He remained president until 1985 and served as history department chairman until his retirement in 2002. "

Please present  your evidence to support your claim that Dr. Warren Carroll is also a theologian.

He's a very orthodox Catholic historian, not a theologian. He writes history from the orthodox Catholic perspective.

Littleles
[right][snapback]631543[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Whatever. :sigh: Why do I even bother?

[url="http://www.christendom.edu/news/archives/archives02/carroll.shtml"]Dr. Warren H. Carroll[/url] taught a class called [i]History and Theology of Pope John Paul II[/i] and taught about [i]the great theological battle over “homoousios vs homoiousios.”[/i]

Again, you are looking foolish with all that egg on your face.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 4 2005, 05:06 PM']Whatever.  :sigh:  Why do I even bother?

[url="http://www.christendom.edu/news/archives/archives02/carroll.shtml"]Dr. Warren H. Carroll[/url] taught a class called [i]History and Theology of Pope John Paul II[/i] and taught about [i]the great theological battle over “homoousios vs homoiousios.”[/i]

Again, you are looking foolish with all that egg on your face.  
[right][snapback]631645[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You still haven't given us Dr. Carroll's credential in theology. Teaching a course labeled "Theology" obviosuly isn't proof that the teacher is a qualified theologian.

And aren't you overlooking 1 Kings 6:1:
"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD."

That would make the date of the Exodus 1443 B.C.

I believe your Dr. Carroll quotation is taken from his "Founding of Christendom."

"There is now general agreement among scholars that the Exodus took place during the thirteenth century (1300-1200) B.C.; former support for the earlier date, around the time of Akhenaten or even before, has dwindled away.

Perhaps you are missing the fact that here Dr. Carroll is dismissing 1 King 6:1's dating as fictional.

But I agree with Dr. Carroll on this point.

Apparently you have missed the claim he makes or have chosen to ignor the obvious contradiction.

Edited July 4, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 06:55 PM']RESPONSE:

You still haven't given us Dr. Carroll's credential in theology. Teaching a course labeled "Theology" obviosuly isn't proof that the teacher is a qualified theologian.

And aren't you overlooking 1 Kings 6:1:
"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD." 

That would make the date of the Exodus 1443 B.C.

I believe  your Dr.  Carroll quotation  is taken from his "Founding of Christendom."

"There is now general agreement among scholars that the Exodus took place during the thirteenth century (1300-1200) B.C.; former support for the earlier date, around the time of Akhenaten or even before, has dwindled away.

Perhaps you are missing the fact that here Dr. Carroll is dismissing 1 King 6:1's dating as  fictional.

But I agree with Dr. Carroll on this point.

Apparently you have missed the claim he makes or have chosen to ignor the obvious contradiction.
[right][snapback]631685[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

blah blah blah

[Semperviva]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 05:55 PM']RESPONSE:

You still haven't given us Dr. Carroll's credential in theology. Teaching a course labeled "Theology" obviosuly isn't proof that the teacher is a qualified theologian.

And aren't you overlooking 1 Kings 6:1:
"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD." 

That would make the date of the Exodus 1443 B.C.

I believe  your Dr.  Carroll quotation  is taken from his "Founding of Christendom."

"There is now general agreement among scholars that the Exodus took place during the thirteenth century (1300-1200) B.C.; former support for the earlier date, around the time of Akhenaten or even before, has dwindled away.

Perhaps you are missing the fact that here Dr. Carroll is dismissing 1 King 6:1's dating as  fictional.

But I agree with Dr. Carroll on this point.

Apparently you have missed the claim he makes or have chosen to ignor the obvious contradiction.
[right][snapback]631685[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


i completely disagree with dr. carroll on moses and the exodus and thats fine...his whole exodus section was carp...just my opinion