"Scholarly consensus" sees Moses as a mythical figure?

Status
Not open for further replies.
thephilosopher6 posted months ago that “many scholars are willing to accept that “a Moses like figure” existed in the Transjordan area but may have been increasingly mythologized over centuries.”

Is that allowed for Catholics to believe?
 
Yes, Catholics are allowed to believe that “many scholars are willing to accept…” for almost any statement. They could be wrong sometimes about what scholars accept.

Catholics are also allowed to believe “a Moses like figure” existed in the Transjordan area.”

They are also allowed imo to say that figure has been “increasingly mythologized.”

I am not sure what you are asking? None of those are particularly controversial.
 
Dovekin said:
Yes, Catholics are allowed to believe that “many scholars are willing to accept…” for almost any statement. They could be wrong sometimes about what scholars accept.

Catholics are also allowed to believe “a Moses like figure” existed in the Transjordan area.”

They are also allowed imo to say that figure has been “increasingly mythologized.”

I am not sure what you are asking? None of those are particularly controversial.
Click to expand...
What I meant, if I wasn’t clear is, are Catholics allowed to believe that the figure of the Biblical Moses was actually a “Moses like figure” and that he as well as his part of the Bible was embellished?
 
Last edited:
I have published three articles on Moses, one a researched scholarly 50 page article in a major journal. I never came across a writer that said Moses didn’t exist. It is possible that a few writers have said this–but this claim that there is a “scholarly consensus” that he was not historical does not exist. Scholars generally don’t doubt his existence.

Wikipedia brings out some people that have made questionable remarks in articles on religious and Catholic topics. I tried three or four times to correct an article in wikipedia on a Catholic topic that said things that are obviously incorrect, and the person who wrote the last version always immediately removed what I said and restored his own words each time, so I gave it up as a lost cause.
 
Last edited:
mdgspencer said:
I have published three articles on Moses, one a researched scholarly 50 page article in a major journal. I never came across a writer that said Moses didn’t exist.

Wikipedia brings out some people that have made questionable remarks in articles on religious and Catholic topics. I tried three or four times to correct an article in wikipedia on a Catholic topic that said things that are obviously incorrect, and the person who wrote the last version always immediately removed what I said and restored his own words each time, so I gave it up as a lost cause.
Click to expand...
It’s not just Wikipedia but virtually every article I can find says scholars doubt Moses existed.
 
Hope1960 said:
It’s not just Wikipedia but virtually every article I can find says scholars doubt Moses existed.
Click to expand...
Do scholars also doubt that the Transfiguration happened? I bet they do.

How about the Resurrection? There’s probably some scholarship “debunking” that out there.
 
Last edited:
I am still not seeing your question.
Was the figure of Moses a “Moses like figure”? I would say anyone could believe that, practically is required to believe it.
Was his story “embellished”? I dont know what you mean by that. Was his story told so that the author could make a point? Yes of course.
 
Dovekin said:
Was the figure of Moses a “Moses like figure”? I would say anyone could believe that, practically is required to believe it.

Was his story “embellished”? I dont know what you mean by that. Was his story told so that the author could make a point? Yes of course.
Click to expand...
I mean, are Catholics allowed to believe that Moses was a composite of a couple or several people, or not based on a man named Moses but adapted from someone else and can we believe that his story was changed, added on to etc.
 
Last edited:
A preceding poster said “It’s not just Wikipedia but virtually every article I can find says scholars doubt Moses existed.”

I would be happy to listen if you could say more about this. Can you quote the scholars that say Moses didn’t exist? Not popular publications, of course. The original posters spoke of what scholars say.
 
mdgspencer said:
I would be happy to listen if you could say more about this. Can you quote the scholars that say Moses didn’t exist? Not popular publications, of course. The original posters spoke of what scholars say.
Click to expand...
That was me, and I am basing my comment on a slew of articles found by doing a google search of “was Moses real”.
I’m not going to look all the articles up again to search for the scholars. Do a google search.
 
Last edited:
You STILL have not demonstrated how carbon dating has anything to do with determining if Moses existed. I give up.
 
As Catholics, we are required to believe that the author of the Moses story wrote as other writers wrote. It is not likely that he used the techniques of modern journalism or historiography. He used the techniques of his day, which may have included some forms of “embellishing” that we think are inappropriate.

The Church has always taught that Scriptures should be read “with the mind of he Church.” A literalist approach, that tries to read the srory without understanding the techniques and intent of the human author, is not how we read the Scriptures.
 
Dovekin said:
It is not likely that he used the techniques of modern journalism or historiography. He used the techniques of his day, which may have included some forms of “embellishing” that we think are inappropriate.
Click to expand...
And Catholics are allowed to believe this?

You didn’t answer my question about if Catholics are allowed to believe that Moses was a composite of a couple or several people, or not based on a man named Moses but adapted from someone else?
 
Hope1960 said:
And Catholics are allowed to believe this?

You didn’t answer my question about if Catholics are allowed to believe that Moses was a composite of a couple or several people, or not based on a man named Moses but adapted from someone else?
Click to expand...
I’m curious to know this too (and I say that as a skeptical Catholic).
 
alice24 said:
Let theology to theologians, belief to believers, and science to scientists.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If every one just focused on doing their job without wasting time worrying about what everyone else was doing, we’d be living in a Paradise by now.
 
If you read through the Catechism, it makes plenty of references to Moses being a real person.
 
Sorry. I thought I dd answer the question, but I should have known you would have difficulty understanding me as I have understanding your questions.

It isnot likely that the ancient authors used modern literary techniques, like creating a composite character out of multiple individuals. They may have done things that look like that, but usually there is another purpose to their action.

For example, there are two versions of the 10 commandments in the books of Moses. These likely came from two different sources. The author gives Moses as the source for both versions, which may be a way of affirming both are valid. This joining of material was not an act of combining two individuals into one, but rather a way of showing Moses as the true author of the commandments, despite their similarity to other lists of commandments.
 
Dovekin said:
For example, there are two versions of the 10 commandments in the books of Moses. These likely came from two different sources. The author gives Moses as the source for both versions, which may be a way of affirming both are valid. This joining of material was not an act of combining two individuals into one, but rather a way of showing Moses as the true author of the commandments, despite their similarity to other lists of commandments.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that Moses was a real person? If so, what about all the scholars who say he wasn’t?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top