My doubts on the book of Exodus

[Aulef]

There are interesting archeological evidences in the desert where they wandered, however it is little explored because it is in a very unfriendly country.

 

[Gorgias]

our version of the Bible (the only one we have) cannot be considered inerrant, because it is the result of many copying operations. and copists can make errors.
From this point of view, our version of the Old Testament is more likely to contain errors since it is the result of more copying operations with respect to the New Testament.

Yes and no. Scripture scholars can glean amazing knowledge by comparing manuscripts, classifying “families” of manuscripts, and using the differences to extrapolate to a consensus text.

And no, “length of time” isn’t the measure by which this effort is more (or less) effective. So, even if there were “more copying operations”, that doesn’t necessarily imply “more errors”, as such.

What is the point of divinely inspiring a text but not protecting its copying?

Including humanity in the work of the preservation of the Word. (Why do atheists always assert that God must ‘poof’ all things into existence or else He isn’t ‘God’? Is there no realization how absurd and irrational that makes them sound?)

 

[TheLittleLady]

Because He gave us the Church. She is the foundation and Piller of Truth. She helps us to understand Scripture.

 

[Anesti33]

Neithan:

The problem with asserting a limited biblical infallibility — faith and morals only — and rejecting inerrancy, is then you appeal to something that appeals to error, and the ground of faith evaporates. The faith is based on historical accuracy, in particular the Resurrection, but also salvation history.

Maybe this is true for your faith, but not for my faith. The reason why I believe in Jesus Christ, is that I find that the christian concept of God and of divine love is the highest possible concept. I find that the idea itself that God loves us so much that He chose to assume the human nature and accepted to suffer crucifission in order to save us, expresses such a high concept of God and of divine love that it can comes only from God. In other words, by no means my faith is based on the accounts of the Old Testament, but it is the christian concept of God’s love that makes me believe that Christ is the true God.

Then it is decided: you adhere to Marcionism and not to Catholicism. In Catholicism we revere the Old Testament as we do the Body of the Lord.

 

[Anesti33]

I understand that what you write is contrary to the Catholic Faith, I know that much.

 

[Mmarco]

So, even if there were “more copying operations”, that doesn’t necessarily imply “more errors”, as such.

But it does imply a larger probability of errors; this is a very basic concept of probability. Of course probability doe not mean certainty.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I understand that what you write is contrary to the Catholic Faith, I know that much.

I’m just curious, do you hold to the idea that everything in the Bible is literal? For example, does the account of creation in Genesis mean seven literal days, or do you think it’s using allegory?

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

I understand that what you write is contrary to the Catholic Faith, I know that much.

I’m just curious, do you hold to the idea that everything in the Bible is literal? For example, does the account of creation in Genesis mean seven literal days, or do you think it’s using allegory?

I believe it is historical, but not literal. There is a historical Creation, a historical Adam and Eve, a historical Fall of Man. The Genesis accounts use allegory to achieve a spiritual message, like other parts of Sacred Scripture.

That’s not what’s at issue here. Marcion contends that the God of Israel is fundamentally a different god than Jesus, and that the Old Testament is not in harmony with the New.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

That’s not what’s at issue here. Marcion contends that the God of Israel is fundamentally a different god than Jesus, and that the Old Testament is not in harmony with the New

I’m not sure that’s what @Mmarco was saying, though. I read it as more of just a personal reflection that the New Testament resonates with him than the Old. I don’t know that he meant it as a rejection of the Old.

I could be misreading him, of course, but I’m not sure he’s making the claim you think he is.

 

[Gorgias]

But it does imply a larger probability of errors; this is a very basic concept of probability.

In an individual manuscript? Sure. But that’s not what we’re dealing with, here. Scripture scholars do not merely give a wooden translation of a manuscript and hand it out as a Bible. They synthesize the data, correcting for errors where they find them.

So, even though there’s more time in which errors might have occurred, it doesn’t follow that there are more errors in the OT.

 

[Mmarco]

I’m not sure that’s what @Mmarco was saying, though. I read it as more of just a personal reflection that the New Testament resonates with him than the Old. I don’t know that he meant it as a rejection of the Old.

I could be misreading him, of course, but I’m not sure he’s making the claim you think he is.

My posts are all still here, and everybody can check that I have never made any statements about a rejection of the Old Testament, nor I meant anything like that.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

But it does imply a larger probability of errors; this is a very basic concept of probability.

In an individual manuscript? Sure. But that’s not what we’re dealing with, here. Scripture scholars do not merely give a wooden translation of a manuscript and hand it out as a Bible. They synthesize the data, correcting for errors where they find them.

The problem is that, in order to correct errors, the scholars need manuscripts which are the closest possible to the original manuscripts. The older is a manuscript, the more difficult is to find close copies. The fragments of copies of the Old Testament are much younger than the original manuscripts, which make corrections more difficult.
Anyway, you should understand that there is still disagreement among the scholars about some verses; it is a matter of opinions and there are no certainties

 

[Gorgias]

The problem is that, in order to correct errors, the scholars need manuscripts which are the closest possible to the original manuscripts.

That’s why they work in manuscript families. They can glean from which manuscript tradition a given manuscript was copied. Then, looking at these, they can start to stitch together timelines and extrapolate where errors were introduced. This allows for a process in which the errors may be “backed out.”

Anyway, you should understand that there is still disagreement among the scholars about some verses; it is a matter of opinions and there are no certainties

Umm… all scholarly work is a “matter of opinions [without] certainties”…!

 

[TheLittleLady]

In Catholicism we revere the Old Testament as we do the Body of the Lord.

Where does the Magisterium teach this?

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

In Catholicism we revere the Old Testament as we do the Body of the Lord.

Where does the Magisterium teach this?

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[102] Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

[103] For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66

 

[TheLittleLady]

The Scriptures. This is through the prism of the Church. This quote does not support the evangelical Protestant view of Biblical literalism.

We do not believe that God created the earth in two different ways because the Old Testament says so.

 

[Anesti33]

The Scriptures. This is through the prism of the Church. This quote does not support the evangelical Protestant view of Biblical literalism.

We do not believe that God created the earth in two different ways because the Old Testament says so.

I agree with you - where are you getting the idea that I believe in literalism?

 

[Anesti33]

The Old testament was written on the basis of secular oral traditions; oral traditions can be easily corrupted. I do not consider the Old Testament reliable from an historical point of view; it contains many errors, both scientific and historical. The Old Testament is to be read as a parable giving us moral and spiritual teachings. I do not think that God has ever said to a prophet that some children had to be killed; those verses are the result of a corrupted oral tradition. The Old testament is to be read and intepreted in the light of the New Testament,

I am honest and I do not believe that God has ever given that command; the verse you quoted was written many centuries after the facts reported and it is based on a secular oral tradition. Everybody knows that oral traditions can be easily corrupted, expecially when they are so old. From the Jesus’ teachings, we understand that God didn’t actually give that command.

It seems that Mmarco feels free to discard any hard saying in the OT that he personally feels that Jesus would disagree with. This is not “interpreting the OT in the light of the NT” but this is simply cafeteria Catholicism.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I have read even at Jewish websites, that there is no archaeological evidence supporting the historical accounts in the book of Exodus.

However, I found this on YouTube a few months ago and although controversial, Simcha Jacobovici makes a good presentation on why they haven’t found archaeological evidence to support the book if Exodus. The first point he makes is that the dating was off by what I recall, about 250 years.

Anyway, he shows how the area where the Jews lived has been found and that it was also inhabited by Greeks. There is a lot to see in the documentary and worth watching.

 

[TMC]

It seems that Mmarco feels free to discard any hard saying in the OT that he personally feels that Jesus would disagree with. This is not “interpreting the OT in the light of the NT” but this is simply cafeteria Catholicism.

This is an unnecessarily harsh overreaction to MMarco’s posts. I think that saying the Old Testament is to be interpreted in light of the New is pretty solid Catholic teaching. The fact that his interpretation differs from yours does not make him less Catholic than you.