My doubts on the book of Exodus

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

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.

He denies outright the historicity of the events therein, and the commands of God that he doesn’t like. I think this flies in the face of any possible Catholic hermeneutic.

 

[TMC]

He denies outright the historicity of the events therein, and the commands of God that he doesn’t like. I think this flies in the face of any possible Catholic hermeneutic.

I’m not so sure. The Church does not require a belief in the historicity of Exodus.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

He denies outright the historicity of the events therein, and the commands of God that he doesn’t like. I think this flies in the face of any possible Catholic hermeneutic.

I’m not so sure. The Church does not require a belief in the historicity of Exodus.

I’d beg to differ. The Exodus is an integral part of Salvation History, and Salvation History is central to the identity of the Catholic Church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

[2574] Once the promise begins to be fulfilled (Passover, the Exodus, the gift of the Law, and the ratification of the covenant), the prayer of Moses becomes the most striking example of intercessory prayer, which will be fulfilled in "the one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."19

During the Exodus we, as a people, witness God’s mighty power, His loving kindness, and His command over Heaven and Earth. Of course we realize His ascendance over all other “gods” of the Egyptian pantheon. We realize the covenant and gift to the children of Israel as He spares our firstborn sons.

The history of the Exodus is the history of the Jews and the history of the Jews is the history of the Catholic Church. We cannot extricate Salvation History and isolate it from real historical events in the past, documented by the inspired authors of Sacred Scripture, just as they documented Our Lord’s Passion, death, and resurrection.

 

[TMC]

I’d beg to differ. The Exodus is an integral part of Salvation History, and Salvation History is central to the identity of the Catholic Church.

You can feel that way if you want. I don’t see where the requires a belief that Exodus is inerrant literal history, or that the Church mandates that view.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

I’d beg to differ. The Exodus is an integral part of Salvation History, and Salvation History is central to the identity of the Catholic Church.

You can feel that way if you want. I don’t see where the requires a belief that Exodus is inerrant literal history, or that the Church mandates that view.

I never said anything like that. Double-down on the straw-man if it makes you feel better, though?

 

[TMC]

I never said anything like that. Double-down on the straw-man if it makes you feel better, though?

OK, now I am confused. Let’s review. You claimed a poster was a “cafeteria Catholic” for saying that Exodus is not literal history. I said the Church does not require us to believe that Exodus is literal history. You objected, and said I was wrong about that. (Your exact words were “I beg to differ.”) So now you say that you are not saying that the Church requires us to believe that Exodus is literal history, accusing me a building a strawman. So what is your position? Does the Church require Catholics to believe the Exodus is literal history? Or not? I have been clear - no, that belief is not required. What do you say?

 

[Anesti33]

You’re putting words in my mouth and I won’t discuss this with you until you quote my exact words and p(name removed by moderator)oint where I allegedly wrote such things.

 

[TMC]

quote my exact words and p(name removed by moderator)oint where I allegedly wrote such things.

Happy to.

I’m not so sure. The Church does not require a belief in the historicity of Exodus.

I’d beg to differ. The Exodus is an integral part of Salvation History, and Salvation History is central to the identity of the Catholic Church.

What did your response mean, if you were not “begging to differ” with my assertion that the Church does not require a belief in the historicity of Exodus? I am really just trying to understand your position, which seemed up until a couple posts ago.

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

I never said anything like that. Double-down on the straw-man if it makes you feel better, though?

OK, now I am confused. Let’s review. You claimed a poster was a “cafeteria Catholic” for saying that Exodus is not literal history. I said the Church does not require us to believe that Exodus is literal history. You objected, and said I was wrong about that. (Your exact words were “I beg to differ.”) So now you say that you are not saying that the Church requires us to believe that Exodus is literal history, accusing me a building a strawman. So what is your position? Does the Church require Catholics to believe the Exodus is literal history? Or not? I have been clear - no, that belief is not required. What do you say?

You haven’t quoted anything remotely like that.

 

[Anesti33]

I’m not so sure. The Church does not require a belief in the historicity of Exodus.

You even misquoted yourself! Masterful! Words mean things, use them carefully, OK?

 

[TMC]

You haven’t quoted anything remotely like that.

You seem to be unwilling to actually discuss the issues, or even give your own viewpoint. That’s fine, I am not interested in trying to drag a sincere conversation out of someone that is not interested in having one. I have made my point (which you don’t ever really contest), which is that the Church does not mandate a literal historical reading of Exodus, and reading Scripture seriously, but not necessarily literally, does not make someone a cafeteria Catholic.

 

[Anesti33]

Now you pull in the word “literally” to your assertion. That is a whole different ballgame than “historical”.

May I ask how you would define “literally” when you apply it this way to Sacred Scripture? What criteria would a “literal” reading entail?

 

[TMC]

Now you pull in the word “literally” to your assertion. That is a whole different ballgame than “historical”.

May I ask how you would define “literally” when you apply it this way to Sacred Scripture? What criteria would a “literal” reading entail?

You started this conversation by insulting another poster and declaring him less than really Catholic for the sin of expressing what he thinks about Exodus. But you won’t even say what you believe, beyond claiming I am misrepresenting you (even when I quote you). Given that, I don’t see how this conversation can continue. If you want to actually say what you believe, and why you think the Church mandates that belief or something like it, maybe we can discuss that.

 

[Anesti33]

“Literal” as in “Biblical literalism” would be treating Sacred Scripture as a historical textbook, or a news report: a contemporary, play-by-play, factually-coherent, accurate eyewitness account of the events as they happened in real time. Chariots are counted and accurate ±10. Victories and losses are tallied. Quotes as the words actually proceeded from the mouths of the speakers. The men and women are named as their parents named them. Place names as the contemporary locals understand them. Etc.

I reject this Biblical literalism as unworkable and unorthodox.
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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

Catholic Cross Reference:

The most important part of reading the Bible is making sure you understand the literal sense of the text. This can mean knowing the vocabulary, understanding the literary form of the text, investigating the original language used, or unpacking the symbolism of a parable. For example, when Jesus says “I am the vine, you are the branches” ( John 15:5 ), you have to know he is referring to himself being the main shoot of a grapevine and his disciples being the offshoots, and not to himself being a vine clinging to the branches of a tree.

This is the literal sense of Scripture which we adhere to in Catholic hermeneutics. It was described by one of my teachers as meaning “what the inspired authors intended to mean.”

Now may I ask what you understand as “historical”? Because you have conflated “historical” with “literal” in your exchanges with me, you must understand it differently than I do.

 

[Hodos]

Why is there no any archaeological evidence of thousands of people who died in the desert during the forty years?

Archeological finds over three thousand years old are exceedingly rare to find, particularly when you are speaking of a nomadic people, which Israel was during the period of the Exodus. On top of that, let’s say we find ancient remains in the desert, how easy would it be to distinguish the Israelites from other nomadic peoples occupying nearby lands?

It is also pretty weird to discount the written record provided in the Bible and only rely upon archeological evidence. Most of what we know about history is provided in the written records that have survived. Archeological evidence serves to back up historical narratives, or provide nuance, rather than to write a new history altogether. In fact, the most valuable archeological evidence we find is usually writing of some sort, be it cuneiform tablets, hieroglyphs, pottery with writing or artwork depicting events, and vellum or papyrus records, etc.

That being said, there is lots of archeological evidence in Egypt of Asiatic settlers who were later expelled from Egypt (look up the Hyksos), as well as the gradual settlement of Canaanite land by conquest, which sounds very much like the narrative provided in Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua and Judges. Also, Canaan was not under Egyptian occupation the entire time. In fact, the land of Canaan was situated between two competing empires (the Egyptians and the Hittites), with Canaan, Aram, and Haran serving as buffers between the two. It is after the stalemate battle of Kadesh between Egyptian and Hittite forces where the two empires pulled back for a few hundred years allowing the independent kingdom of Israel to really take root under Saul.

 

[TMC]

Now may I ask what you understand as “historical”? Because you have conflated “historical” with “literal” in your exchanges with me, you must understand it differently than I do.

I understand the difference you are trying to draw between “historical” and “literal” but I find it a tenuous difference. I think you are suggesting that Exodus in “historical” but not “literal” because it may be a bit off in things like the number of chariots, or what have you. If that is your view, how is that really any different than those (like the poster you attacked), who say that maybe some people relocated from Egypt to Israel, but it was nothing like the two million described by Scripture? It seems that you are saying its OK to disbelieve certain facts, but not others. I agree that it is important to remember what is intended to be taught by the text. But you seem to be saying its OK to assert, for example, that the words recorded are not necessarily what came out of the speakers’ mouths, but that one must assent that a golden calf was melted and fed to a crowd (my examples, not yours). If you agree that the facts might not be accurate, but that what matters is what is meant to be taught, why is your view of the facts OK, but the view that millions did not really wander in the desert for 40 years out of bounds for a Catholic?

 

[Anesti33]

What I am saying is that the ancient inspired authors of the OT were not concerned in writing a history textbook or a news report as we have them today. They were concerned in conveying eternal, spiritual truths through their accounts of historical events.

For example, the discrepancies between Chronicles and Judges/Kings cited earlier involving the numbers of things. Could be chalked up to different eyewitnesses counting different ways. Could be chalked up to the inspired authors desiring to convey a different allegorical truth, and numbering the chariots accordingly. This doesn’t falsify the event, the presence of chariots, or the author’s intent.

On the other hand, we have the Creation as a historical event. I doubt any Catholic can deny that God created the Heavens and the Earth. I doubt we can credibly assert that it takes Him 168 hours to do it. I doubt we can credibly assert that He speaks “Fiat lux” in Hebrew or any other human language. The Creation accounts (both of them) are true and do not conflict, because they do what the inspired author intends them to do. They convey truths about the natural world and the supernatural realm. Not scientific facts as we would arrive in a lab with test tubes, but Truths about Man and Nature that were just as true 6000 years ago as they are today, and will be 1000 years in the future.

 

[Gorgias]

You didn’t answer the question.

Sure, I did! Did you miss it? The answer to the question of “what’s the point?” is “so that humanity would be a participant in the preservation of the Word.” When we guard and care for the Word of God, for the sake of future generations, we participate in evangelization. That isn’t clear to you?

 

[Anesti33]

You can participate in evangelization better with an uncorrupted Bible.

What would you consider to be “uncorrupted”?

 

[TMC]

OK, I appreciate you giving more information on your thoughts. But given that you are not a fundamentalist or literalist, I am even more confused why you would attack others, calling them names and questioning their faith, for giving their own view of Scripture.