Scholars Don't Think Moses Wrote the Torah. Who did?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 พ.ย. 2023
- SOCIAL MEDIA:
Newsletter: breakinginthehabit.org/newsle...
Facebook: goo.gl/UoeKWy
Twitter: goo.gl/oQs6ck
Instagram: goo.gl/ShMbhH
Podcast: goo.gl/xqkssG
INTERESTED IN BECOMING A FRIAR?
Holy Name Province: goo.gl/MXKb2R
Find your Vocation Director: goo.gl/2Jc52z
SUPPORT THE MISSION
Order my books: amzn.to/386QDpR
Donate Monthly: goo.gl/UrrwNC
One-time gifts: goo.gl/eKnFJN
MUSIC
Epidemicsound.com
I love showing your videos to my friends who criticize the Catholic Church for supposedly being against knowledge, learning, or sciences.
Seriously! Because of Father Casey, anytime someone brings up science I'm so passionate and quick to say, "well if it's science you're looking for the Catholic Church is your answer, from Mendel pioneering the study of genetics to Lemaître's proposal of the big bang (a monk and a priest, respectively), to the Universities and institutions throughout the world, the preservation of knowledge, text and literature in monasteries throughout the Middle Ages, we're still using the Gregorian calendar!" Most people think they can't go hand in hand
However a sever discretion is needed regarding what is object of science and what is a source of it. I refer here to the heretical sourcing of Revelation, which is not mankind but God. Scholars are now denying Moses even existed. Then who appeared in the Transfiguration? The scholar's computer probably. There is no bottom to human doubt but the abbyss, which is bottomless. That's why we need God and positive Revelation for Salvation, as the Church has always clearly taught. We do need to return to the canons of the Faith. The solution to this crisis of Faith, and despair, in the Church is in the oath against modernism of Saint Pope Pius X.
Yet they still believe the world was made in 7 days abd there is a sky daddy up there that hears your prays.
@@vdoggydogg3922 The Big Bang was proposed by a Catholic priest.
@JuanMPalacio is it church doctrine? One member of the church is meaningless. The big bang is not taught at Bible school.
Although not a Catholic myself, strictly speaking, I've always been of the opinion that the Catholic Church is way more sensible about these things than many other denominations, if only because it values science and research and is flexible and sensible enough to take on board their deliverables. As modern Popes stated on many occasions, science and religion should never clash. But, like every human activity, science is not inerrant, and it's good to challenge it from time to time too. Scientists have been proven wrong many times in the past.
A bad scientist says his findings are beyond reproach (or worse, falsifies his results to make them say what he wants). A good scientist wants others to try and disprove his findings. If an experiment yields the same or similar enough results consistently, then there's a good chance you're onto something. If it doesn't, it might be time to go back to the drawing board. Science isn't a religion and doesn't claim to be infallible, as much as many modern people seem to weirdly cling to it like it is. Science isn't a system of facts. Science is a process which will hopefully, if everything is done right, bring us closer to the truth.
Indeed! Guided by the spirit and good intention!
You are right. And the reason for the Catholic Church values knowledge and science is that, for the Church, every truth, of any kind, comes from God and must be internally consistent to other truths, as all truths are "parts" of THE truth (Jesus).
While I'm not Catholic, I'm glad to see that you're still making these particular videos again, as I do like this series. 🙂
"what makes Scripture inerrant is not that every word on every subject is perfect or original, but that it perfectly contains what is necessary for salvation" is a great explanation! i encounter people who push back against the inerrancy of Scripture for so many reasons, and i think it's because they don't understand what we mean by "inerrant."
It's absolute nonsense. The Gospel is perfectly preserved and the Torah and the Prophets are perfectly preserved and this supposedly historical analysis of the Torah is actually against historical data and disregards clear evidence of preservation. It is actually crucial that a Christian believes the Torah is perfectly preserved. Because if it is corrupted, it is not divine any longer. The Torah was once lost after the Babylonian exile but it was found buried under the Temple during the reign of Josiah around 622 BC. It was the same Torah scroll as before, buried to protect it from being burned by the Babylonians. Since then it has been the same and it is absolutely clear it has not changed from the time of Jesus based on manuscripts, or the time the Masoretic Text was written.
The questionable authorship of many books of the Bible is a not something unique to the Biblical canon. It is a common feature for most works of literature and non-fiction in antiquity. This deep dive that Father Casey does here is something that more Christians need to hear, especially those Christians who still embrace the idea of literal Biblical inerrancy. Thank you, Father Casey, for such an illuminating look into the complex world of Biblical criticism. I hope that such textual scrutiny will be applied by the Islamic community to their Qur'an and Hadith. I think, in future generations, they will also come to realize that their unwavering belief in the singular authorship of both texts will not standup to scholarly scrutiny.
While I fully agree with Fr. Cole's video, even though I am a member of the friendly "opposition" (I'm a retired Free Methodist minister), I think we can jump to conclusions regarding authorship without good evidence. A good example, IHMO, is the controversy surrounding 1 and 2 Peter. Few questions exist regarding 1 Peter, but seeing great differences between them many have suggested that this is proof of different authorship. They do not seems to consider the possibility that Peter may very well have had the assistance of a trained scribe for 1 Peter, but not for 2 Peter. We know Paul used a scribe for at least some of his letters, and he was much more highly educated than Peter. We should not overlook the obvious....
Look up Dr. Bruebaker (sp?) and his recent work on textual critique of the Quran. Very intriguing stuff.
@@m_d1905 Thank you for the recommendation.
Thank you again for these videos! As a person in the process of converting these are great to listen to when I’m studying for RCIA or just doing some cleaning and cooking in the house. God bless you!
Something else you should note is that Moses was adopted by Pharaoh's daughter and as such, would have learned how to write, he might well have been started compiling oral tradition because there was no one else who could write it down. Then, other hands picked up the work he started and kept writing and editing his work.
it's not a scientiffic take tho. Most scholars now don't have any evidence for biblical story of Moses having taken place in Egypt. On the contrary, Egyptians do not have any sources of it either. Scholars belive that the story was made in Babillon during 6th century. Story was made to strenghten jewish identity, as many started loosing it due to disperse of families. So Moses clearly wasn't adopted by Pharaoh and he prolly never existed or at the very least, not in the same form. This doesn't invalidate Bibble in any shape or form, as from theological standpoint, it value remains the same. It simply makes this account unhistorical, but still important for history due to it's impact on culture.
well said @@P.H.226 nothing about Faith
@@P.H.226 Then who was the one who was with Jesus during the transfiguration? There were Elijah and Moses
@@jeremiahmeza8272 I don't think he is a christian thus probably doesn't believe in the transfiguration.
@@jeremiahmeza8272 That was what the *disciples* saw, and how they *interpreted* what they saw.
i might add that authorship worked differently those days, ecclesiastes claims to be from solomon, but it clearly means something more like ''inspired by'' or ''from the school of'' solomon and was written ages later
@@holdfast5332yup Jesus said Moses. Not Moses and some other guys.
@@holdfast5332You don't think it could be the same thing with what Jesus said? You just admitted it's nuanced
@@holdfast5332 but that literally flies in the face of evidence. If our interpretation of scripture is proven wrong by evidence, then our interpretation is wrong
@@holdfast5332 I didn't say Jesus was wrong, but ok, whatever..
@holdfast5332 look at the example from the video at 3:32. The same person made it with 2 different writing styles. So just ask them to prove Moses didn't do it on purpose for various reasons.
Thank you for not shying away from this issue, Fr. I've read that classicists beleive that the works of Homer were passed down orally for centuries before they were finally written down, and that final compiler of the stories can be called "Homer". I think we face a similar issue here where we have the traditional Moses vs an historical one, albeit with significantly more consequences for our faith. What I struggle with with these kinds of subjects is that many of these same scholars don't agree that there was a historical Moses. So what are we do to do with those scholarly views?
The same we do with the mythical account of Creation: we take the teaching that the story gives us about reltionship between God and humanity, even if we don't believe it really happened.
@@Laurelin70 Correct me if I'm wrong, but we do believe in the fall of Adam in the literal sense?
@@reginaldphillips7615 Actually not.
We should remember:
1) Writing did exist from the time of Abraham forward (we have solid evidence to this effect) It is therefore not impossible that at least some parts of the first 5 books were written down early. In fact, it would be surprising if it was not. We should also remember that Moses was educated and that there were likely a few literate people among the Israelites. The fact that we do not have the original source material nearly 3,500 years later is also exactly what we should expect.
2) In a largely oral culture, collective memorization can be very accurate. It is nothing like the "telephone game".
3) The compiling of the text DOES NOT exclude inspiration - Luke flat out tells us this about his Gospel, and we certainly believe it to be inspired.
There is nothing in the above, or in what Fr. Cole presented, that contradicts Biblical inerrancy as understood by the vast majority of theologically conservative evangelical scholars.
There is no evidence to Hebrew writing culture prior to about 950 BC.
Having written a PhD thesis and remembering how difficult it is to edit, I got a bit belly laugh from "I'm more worried about the editor." I don't think I've ever heard the problem put this way before.
Great video...thank you for an honest look at our faith. Keep up the good work.
In Icelandic (and I'm sure some other languages too) we don't call them "Genesis", "Exodus", and so on. We go with the much simpler "First Book of Moses" to "Fifth Book of Moses" (although the international names are also given in parenthesis).
Very helpful video!
Hey, I think thats because Iceland is mostly protestant. In German the protestants also number the books like you.
By the way I love Iceland and Im learning Icelandic for years i hope i can visit one day 😅
Father, thank you so much for these videos. Very thought provoking!
You are a real gem. Thank you for this.
I also follow useful charts. Very interesting
He has done a whole series called who wrote the Bible from an academic viewpoint. This man is in fact Jewish
From the Pontifical Biblical Commission, June 27th, 1906:
"I: Are the arguments gathered by critics to impugn the Mosaic authorship of the sacred hooks designated by the name of the Pentateuch of such weight in spite of the cumulative evidence of many passages of both Testaments, the unbroken unanimity of the Jewish people, and furthermore of the constant tradition of the Church besides the internal indications furnished by the text itself, as to justify the statement that these books are not of Mosaic authorship but were put together from sources mostly of post-Mosaic date?
Answer: In the negative.
II: Does the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch necessarily imply a production of the whole work of such a character as to impose the belief that each and every word was written by Moses' own hand or was by him dictated to secretaries ; or is it a legitimate hypothesis that he conceived the work himself under the guidance of divine inspiration and then entrusted the writing of it to one or more persons, with the understanding that they reproduced his thoughts with fidelity and neither wrote nor omitted anything contrary to his will, and that finally the work composed after this fashion was approved by Moses, its principal and inspired author, and was published under his name?
Answer: In the negative to the first and in the affirmative to the second part.
III: Without prejudice to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, may it be granted that in the composition of his work Moses used sources, written documents namely or oral traditions, from which in accordance with the special aim he entertained and under the guidance of divine inspiration he borrowed material and inserted it in his work either word for word or in substance, either abbreviated or amplified?
Answer: In the affirmative.
IV: Subject to the Mosaic authorship and the integrity of the Pentateuch being substantially safeguarded, may it be admitted that in the protracted course of centuries certain modifications befell it, such as : additions made after the death of Moses by an inspired writer, or glosses and explanations inserted in the text, certain words and forms changed from archaic into more recent speech, finally incorrect readings due to the fault of scribes which may be the subject of inquiry and judgement according to the laws of textual criticism?
Answer In the affirmative, saving the judgement of the Church."
Spot on. Much appreciated and well presented.
I haven't watched the video, but the first thought that came to my mind is: why should I, a Catholic, care about what some 21st century secular scholar has to say about the history of my religion, which dates further than 2000 years?
Because we believe that faith and reason not only can be allied, but SHOULD be allied.
@@Laurelin70Reason says that a 2000 year old tradition is more credible than a reddit atheist "scholar."
@@Migueleby Reason says that any tradition (no matter how old) is less credible than a several years long research made with scientific criteria (i.e. based on material evidence, in this case textual evidence). And calling historians with university degrees "reddit scholars" is very presumptuous.
What do you mean "some 21st century secular scholar"? This is the consensus of Biblical scholars, the vast majority of whom are NOT secular but are Christian (or Jewish)
Heck, literally dozens of Catholic priests have been fantastic Biblical scholars like J.P Meier or Raymond Brown
Thank you for this interesting video father Casey. As a historian (ancient history) it would seem obvious that Moses did not literally write the Pentateuch. However I did not know the position of the Catholic Church on this, I am not Catholic and I wasn’t even aware of the original idea that Moses wrote these books. So it is very interesting to hear about this! I agree with your conclusion. I think if we have an open mind and let faith lead us there is no conflict between science and religion.
tremendo padre!!! muy buena explicacion.
Your ultimate point Father Casey about the Holy Spirit as the final source and true moderator of God's word is the true cohesive point taht faith calls us to abide in.
I love this series! 😎
You are such a good teacher. Thank you.
The words of the church in the middle of this video are amazing. They amount to a politely phrased "bring it on, bro" directed at the secular historians. They don't understand that our faith isn't based upon dusty texts dug out of the dirt... it's based upon the living Jesus Christ, Lord and God.
They’re not a “bring it on” at all, politely phrases or otherwise. They’re a call to Catholic theologians and historians to accept the facts discovered by secular scholars.
@@PhryneMnesarete Yes and no? They're also a call for Catholics to involve ourselves in not just pure philosophy and theology, but the sciences as well. Science, at least in its ideal form, is well aware of the errancy of human beings, and so advocates for the replicability of research in order for others to verify results. The use of science allows us to ground theology and philosophy in both physical and social reality, but because of human error, we need as many people as possible to do science, so we can be sure that what we get is the truth. If we simply accept pre-existing facts from the sciences as they currently are, we can end up unbelieving of future discoveries (as with some Christians, including many Catholics, when it comes to even relatively old theories such as the Big Bang Theory and Evolution; ironically, the former was proposed by a Catholic priest, tho that detail seems to be left out both in secular and religious schools, at least within basic education here in my country). If we want to get closer to the truth, especially regarding the Bible and God, it's best that we ourselves also conduct scientific studies. Again, the more people we have who are proficient in science and research (even if to a small extent), the more efficiently and effectively we can verify or disprove theories, and the less likely we are to believe in falsehoods.
@@PhryneMnesarete Yes and no? They're also a call for Catholics to involve ourselves in not just pure philosophy and theology, but the sciences as well. Science, at least in its ideal form, is well aware of the errancy of human beings, and so advocates for the replicability of research in order for others to verify results. The use of science allows us to ground theology and philosophy in both physical and social reality, but because of human error, we need as many people as possible to do science, so we can be sure that what we get is the truth. If we simply accept pre-existing facts from the sciences as they currently are, we can end up unbelieving of future discoveries (as with some Christians, including many Catholics, when it comes to even relatively old theories such as the Big Bang Theory and Evolution; ironically, the former was proposed by a Catholic priest, tho that detail seems to be left out both in secular and religious schools, at least within basic education here in my country). If we want to get closer to the truth, especially regarding the Bible and God, it's best that we ourselves also conduct scientific studies. Again, the more people we have who are proficient in science and research (even if to a small extent), the more efficiently and effectively we can verify or disprove theories, and the less likely we are to believe in falsehoods.
So well explained, God bless!
I struggle with the concept of the telephone game. We have to be careful when questioning the authorship of the Scriptures. When we suggest that Moses didn't write the Torah (I'll give you his death) we begin the possibly of questioning other historical writings, i.e. Chronicles, Kings, etc. This can lead us to what is happening today in Mainline Protestant circles, the complete disregard for the Scriptures and the denial of the necessity for salvation from sin. We can certainly admit that there may be questions concerning certain passages, Gen. 1 and 2 were written with a different focus Chapter two specifically with the focus on mankind. Certainly scribes or secretaries wrote down what the author said. Luke clearly states he referred to other sources.
We also need to be careful that we don't leap into the denial of the truth of Scripture (we don't need to follow that because it was a different age).
You presented the arguments well given the short amount of time, but it might lead some down the primrose path.
I think that slippery slope argument is really only a Protestant issue when you let go of the Holy Spirit. The "telephone game" as you call it doesn't bother me in the slightest because it doesn't matter which human author wrote it. What difference, really, does it make if Moses wrote the Torah or Joshua? Or some random person you never heard of? None of them are God and so none of them have the ability to speak without error. It requires the work of the Holy Spirit, who can work through anyone.
The thing is as far as I'm aware the idea of Mosaic authorship developed late. Jews simply begun to attribute authorship to him after beginning to care more about authorship
@@clouds-rb9xt it's actuallt relevant for all of history. I know many cases where some laws were made by several people yet the name is attributed to only one. On the Catholic Church side the most famous is (I think) Gregorian reform when the said pope is usually the only 1 mentioned, even tho he wasn't even the main contributor. Yet we were still in the time frame when vatican archives were functioning etc. now imagine Jews that in the meantime had gone through several deportations, discrimination etc. It was simply easier to call it mosaic law, especially that Moses was only a symbol and the law was what really mattered, as it united community around it.
Why does it matter? Because the authorship is important in determining if the text can be trusted in its accuracy. If Moses didn't write it, the objection will be that someone hundreds of years later may have. If so, then we can't really be sure that it really happened the way it was written. Sure, maybe you, Fr. Casey, don't feel that this is an issue for your faith, but for many people it is a big one. It's the whole inerrancy thing which secularists chase around to try to discredit the Bible, by relying upon an undermining of Biblical historicity. If they can show that it's all just another myth like so many other religious texts, then it can be discarded just as easily. This is why we should be on guard when scholars seek to question the authorship. You might recognize the question as a mere scholarly pursuit of the truth, which might sometimes be the case. But just as often it's an attack meant to discredit. At the very least, we should be skeptical of any claims or conclusions which go against the traditions of the Church, especially authorship of our texts.@@BreakingInTheHabit
Thank you for the reply. I appreciate the response; I wasn't expecting one. I completely agree that the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture and can speak through anyone. However, if we take the argument to the logical solution, don't we have to throw out the criteria that the church fathers and councils used when determining the canon of the New Testament. Then who is to say that the pseudepigraphical books of the New Testament, such as the gospel of Thomas, are to be included in the Canon. Iranaeus relied on the Old Testament when he authored the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching. He focused on its authority. Certainly, one can have a growing relationship with Christ and be ambivalent as to the authors of the Old Testament, but they ultimately will come across the need for an argument from authority and will not find one.
I've listened to your videos for several years and have enjoyed your insight. I've been encouraged to see your love of Christ and your dedication to follow him. I am a protestant military chaplain. May God bless your ministry.@@BreakingInTheHabit
I like to think Moses is the one who compiled the multiple sources into one text, with some additions (like the details of his death) written by later unknown authors.
As for the gospels, I strongly believe they are written by whom they are ascribed, as evidenced by the lack of any historical contradictions to their authorship and due to details within the gospels that fit perfectly with their author.
I would agree with this for all of the Gospels save John.
The problem is that the gospels aren't ascribed to anyone. They are all anonymous. The titles of the books are the only mentions of any authors and those appear to have been added later.
@@thomasdalton1508and the Gospel are retelling of Hebrew and Greek stories. Many of the words attributed to Jesus are literally from Hebrew Bible. With the Epistles never mentioning anything from Jesus mission, family or disciples: and Paul saying he received the teaching via revalation. The Gospel seem like a narrative to help folk understand and recall Paul's teaching.
@@holdfast5332 Good thing I'm not a modernist.
@@russellmiles2861 Jesus was preaching from the Hebrew Bible, so it isn't surprising that a lot of what he said comes from there (and nobody was taking notes on his exact words as he was speaking, so the authors of the gospels probably referred to scripture themselves to figure out what he probably said based on general accounts from those that had been present decades earlier).
A lot of Paul's teaching is not directly attributed to Jesus and he admits that he never met Jesus. He was mostly preaching about the apocalypse and second coming, which he clearly thought was imminent. Exactly what connection he had to the gospels is unclear. Mark, the first of the gospels, was likely written a few years after Paul's death, so he certainly didn't use them as a source and wouldn't have had any direct involvement in their creation. The gospels only touch fairly briefly on the second coming, so I'm not sure the authors were particularly close followers of Paul, or they likely would have devoted more time to his favourite topic.
4) Developed in different eras ... I would say the text received linguistic and terminological updates after Moses wrote it, as when a city is renamed after the Ramesses pharaos, the new name is inserted into Exodus 1:11. And obviously, how much a redactor redacts is up to his own zeal or otherwise.
It’s makes me wonder, I never saw the Torah as written by Moses due to it being a 3rd person perspective writing, but as for Psalm 90 “a psalm of Moses” I have thought of it as written or sung by Moses and written by someone else, how would this relate since we know that it was not all written by Moses?
So good snd clear yo understand well.thank you Fr Casey.great teacher that you are.
I love these nerdy topics.
When reading Exodus, I always got he impression that instead of a single, flowing story it was a stitching together of different stories that were eventually written down together. It seems in every new chapter of Exodus, God, through Moses, commands something, the Israelites disobey and God has to correct them. Again! One would think that after the 10 plagues and parting of the sea they would never think of disobeying. But they do. And if one steps back and looks each chapter is its own morality tale. Several stories put together to form a better, more complete story.
Great video!
Is that a bit of gray hair showing at the temples?
The Rembrandt is particularly apropos!
This is the only channel where I don’t see people commenting “first”!
Well, Jesus dis say that "the first shall be last".
12) Ah no, you are even misquoting (or misinterpreting the exact words of) Dei Verbum.
_"Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind" (2 Tim. __3:16__-17, Greek text)."_
So, the teaching is for our salvation. But the inspiration of the Holy Spirit also extends to the facts, notably historic, by which the Church came to know this teaching, not just to the teaching itself, if the facts are also in the Bible. Without error does not just mean "without error as far as the teaching goes" but also "without any error surrounding the teaching on any side" ... the opposite of the one would be "with substantial error" and the opposite of the other would be "with accidental error" -- what you cite denies, as much as St. Thomas did, both.
7:42 The 1906 answer is perfectly acceptable in so far as Moses was not the first to pen "Heber begat Peleg", as Moses did not pen the story of his death, and as Moses did not pen the name "Ramesses" but an older name, but temple scribes changed it in copying in the times of the Ramesside pharaos, and dito for linguistic updates -- I love to give the spelling of Tegnér as an example, since Sweden underwent a spelling reform in 1906, but since "Frithiofs saga" is metric, the wording is not changed. I'd prefer to give examples on how wordings or even phrases can be changed in editions of Gulliver's Travels or Robinson Crusoe to make the edition understandable for an audience a few centuries longer. Moses obviously did not pen changes that Cohanim decided after his death, but they still did so on his authority.
Documentary hypothesis has some flaws when you consider the cultural context in which the Torah was written. The doublets, where the same story is told twice in slightly different variations, is a common feature of Bronze Age Near Eastern literature.
Awesome. Excellent channel. God bless you Father Casey 🙏. Art Bezrukavenko agree with it yes better off in USA Art Bezrukavenko Thomas.
8) All stories 6:18 _"can grow and adapt"_
Folklorists collecting the Sagen aus Österreich (divided into the "Sagen" from each of the nine lands of Austria) have found very short texts that have not grown. Pretty close to early chapters of Genesis in length.
The later and more detailed ones, I think Abraham used papyrus or clay from some point on.
Another great and informative video. A priest years ago put it this way about the creation stories, God didn’t one day decide to nail a few stars in the sky and another day do something else. No instead, the stories handed down orally were about God being the author of life and God’s relationship with us. The early authors were not historians or scientists either. It was written in a way for people to understand. However God created us to know and love him.
I used to mock you. Now I'm a confirmed catholic. God bless
Awesome.
Some interesting arguments that the Pentateuch was written by someone like Moses (at least in core) mention how similar the descriptions of liturgical instruments and the Ark of the Covenant match Egyptian style in that general time period, and how certain words and phrases match Egyptian culture, something hard to fabricate 1000 years removed. Also, I heard once that the structure of Deuteronomy matches the structure of political letters written by Egypt to other nations. I’m not a scholar and I’m just going off memory though.
This is true.
Also the “multiple stories” accusation ignores that this was the way people wrote back then. It’s a modern writing perspective we are forcing on the past to assume it must mean two authors.
Many ancient sources includes poetic repetition
Hello, I have returned just to comment that your Find your Vocation Director link under the INTERESTED IN BECOMING A FRIAR? group in your description does not work. it leads to a 404, page not found. If you have an updated one, i would appreciate being tagged in it, thank you
www.ofm.org/en/contact-your-province.html
@@BreakingInTheHabitThank you!
How on earth do you have all of this committed to memory and speak so fluidly about it. You must be extremely smart. Please stay with it.
13) Wait, when and where did St. Jerome say he believed any part of the Pentateuch to be more than slightly reformulated by Ezra?
He was not first to translate the Hebrew Bible into Latin, he was first to translate it directly into Latin, if as much.
Vetus Latina was translated from some version of the LXX, and some scholars believe that St. Jerome never got good enough in Hebrew to translate directly, but got it via Aquilas.
Nevertheless, I am wary, not of St. Jerome, but of people citing him without verbatim quotes. CSL miscited "in the words of a popular poet" as implying the presence of "myth" as opposed to straight facts. It only implies the dismissing of unnecessary footnotes.
Excelente
I always assumed it was like with the Early Christian traditions where everything was word of mouth until hundreds of years later when people were like, "maybe lets write something down? Codefying some of these Gospels could be useful" lmao
Edit: wonderful video as always, Padre!
If Jesus referred to those books with Moses as the author, why do we need to even bring up this subject? If the Scriptures teach that they are God breathed and Jesus taught that they could not be broken, and they are brought to us by the Holy Spirit, why do you feel the need to address who the actual author is? Shouldn't we let them teach us patience and allow them to bring us comfort. Shouldn't we be learning what they say instead of questioning what people are responsible for penning them down? Shouldn't we let them reveal God's glory and God's Son, Who, in the volume of the Book it is written of, instead of trying to answer questions that few or none are asking. Focusing on the human author is like trying to conceive if there is a rock that God Almighty can create which is too large for Him to lift, when we should be focusing on the Rock of our salvation which followed the children of Israel through the wilderness. That Rock was Christ. If we don't see Christ throughout the Scriptures, then we are blind to the purposes of God and frustrate and grieve the Holy Spirit.
"the truth will set you free” (John 8:32)
we are not muslims and so we are encouraged to critically, so by this also literrary analyse Bibble. I understand your point about focusing on Jesus but the authorsip can be important for focusing on Jesus too.
Imagine that some beliver meets this idea that Moses in fact didn't write part attributed to him. Imagine then that the person informing our christian about it uses this as a "proof" to invalidate Bibble or Christianity. Beliver not having this explained may loose trust in God. Afterall, his view of the world was just shaken. On the other hand he may ignore it but that kind of faith is irrational and illogical - not how faith should be. Existence of Moses was very important question in the last century and it was often used to attack christianity.
So the question wasn't asked by few but by many and studying it gave us answer that allowed the solution to be both logical but consistent with faith. God wants us to trust him regardless of anything but we are not to be zealots or irrational. When Thomas tried to touch Jesus after ressurection, Thomas wasn't damned for acting logical. Thomas isn't maybe role model for beliving, as Jesus blesses those that belived without seeing. Yet Thomas is still Aposthol, meaning that his faith was strong enough. What about those that have weaker faith? There is no harm in seeking the truth, truth is what makes our belives valuable.
Father, if you read this, I just wanted to say that I love your videos!!!!❤❤❤❤❤❤JMJ
What mendicant or monastic order would you say represents Jesus's love and which mendicant or monastic order represents Jesus's battle with the devil
The history of the bible is an interesting mystery. Very interesting topic.
5) Why the mouth of Moses, unless you add the pen of Aaron? Why not the pen of Moses?
Actually, when he writes of himself in the third person, I get an impression, some guys surround him, he asks them what they saw, they speak -- and Moses writes it down. A bit the reverse of what St. John does when lending his pen to someone who can affidavit that they know his testimony to be true.
When did the Torah / first 5 books writing stop and the version that exists today become the unchangeable version that is in all bibles and Jewish temples? When did the Jewish scholars say this is it and this is what we study today.
Hey I have a question, when I was younger (12) called the holy spirit, ev*1, can I be forgiven?
If you are Catholic.....go to confession. You will be forgiven if you are truly sorry.
You were a child, and that's not what blasphemy against the holy sprit means.
How did we go from "is it possible Moses wrote the original" to "almost defiantly he did". -Actual academia will side with the "he most likely did not, if he existed at all".
Also, Elohim and Yahweh were two distinct Gods when the originals would have been written.
I remember watching a conversation between a priest and a liberal "rabbi". I was shocked when the priest said "Deutero-Isaiah". How can he give up so much basic things in life when he doesn't even believe in God's Word?
I think you may need to return to the end of my video listen to how I ended the video. What makes the text authentic is not that it was written by a single human being but that it was written by God. What difference does it make if Moses wrote every word of the Torah or Isaiah wrote every word of "Isaiah"? Couldn't God be just as present in the passing down and the editing? Seems silly to me to get upset over this.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Here's the thing: John only knows one Isaiah, and he writes under divine inspiration.
Make a video on the Didache..
Are you planning to make a video on whether Moses was a historical figure? As far as I know, most scholars lean towards the opinion that he did not, in fact, exist.
I implore you, Father and audience alike, to dig into the work of Stan Tenen on the... Well i dont even know how to describe it as ive barely scratched the surface of the information... in short I could possibly describe it as a miraculous encoding in the bible and the Hebrew language itself.
Murmuring against Moses by dr John Bergsma, everyone should read it
As a Jew, I’m very excited to hear this. I am religious, but I also fully know that the Torah was not given at Sinai,
I’m religious, yet I believe that the Bible is simply a cultural byproduct of Israelite culture. I believe that the Torah was divinely inspired.
Not The vídeo i expected, but One i welcome
Kind of my calling card.
Father Casey is not the Friar the internet deserves...but the one it needs
I got one more.
Protestant minister: What makes you any better than me?!
Father Casey (dusting off robes and grabbing a rosary) : I'm not wearing khaki pants.
@@thomasbrown3793 He could be. I know I would be wearing something under the habit if it was me.
Think of this in terms of the American Revolution. Most people think when Paul Revere took his famous ride in April, 1775, he went out proclaiming, “The British are coming, the British are coming!” No chance. At that time, they were all British. Our understanding comes from a poem written by Longfellow generations later. Part of the core story is correct, shaped by future understanding.
I love bible ✝️🛐🙏
Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time
The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits
So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply
Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )
I always thought Esdras under inspiration of Holy Spirit wrote the Torah with the help of several scribes. That is what is written in the second book of Esdras.
J,E,P,D. Take your choice, I'm going with Jeremiah.
Dan McClellan, an academic scholar recently did videos on univocality, inspiration, and inerrsncy. I'm more on his side of things at least academically. I am Quaker (not a scholar) , he is Mormon (though he is not a Mormon scholar, just a scholar who happens to be Mormon). In any case, in an age of Protestant apologistis and fundamentalists it's very refreshing to see someone approaching this topic from a religious background in a region manner.
I'll also say thst apparently the documentary hypothesis isn't really in vogue right now academically, there's a semi-documentary hypothesis.
I'm glad you brought up the subject of anachronicity and pre-existing oral tradition. I think there is a similar problem with the treatment of Satan in the Bible. While he is very clearly the enemy of God and Man in Genesis (although if I remember correctly, the 'serpent' is never actually given a name, so that introduces a margin for waffling), in Job he is simply an angel who convinces (?) God to let him inflict calamity on Job, in order to test whether Job is truly loyal to God. Yet Job takes place much, much later than the Fall at the 'hands' of the serpent. Then we hear virtually nothing of Satan until Jesus' 40 days in the desert and when he says 'Vade retro Satanas' (actually in aramaic or ancient Hebrew of course). Lots of oblique references in Revelations, which have also been interpreted to symbolize the Romans rather than Satan, but my point is that for such an important figure (the entire Bible is basically a consequence of the Fall and the struggles of the world with the sin that spread from that point on), we have very little information about our only real enemy. This is very weird. The only explanation I have given myself is that the ancient Jewish world knew much, much more, but that either purposely or because it seemed like superfluous common knowledge, Satan is largely absent in the Bible - although his machinations are a huge part of the backdrop. I wish you would make a video on Satan - I find it so difficult to deal with egregious evil, like possession (I am sure that I have known one such case), without knowing more about this enemy. I watched your video on exorcism, but it does not help with this aspect.
Determining authorship (though related) less interesting than determining source and veracity of the stories within.
Where is your tie ?
❤❤❤
Father Casey, and Daughter, while what you are saying about Moses not writing every word in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, I am still going with the line Gary Cooper says in the movie about Alvin York to his Sunday School Class when asked how he knows what the Bible says is true, "There ain't nothing written in the Book that ain't the Truth!"
Father Casey said this as well, he just said that it probably wasn't all written by Moses. However, he also said it was still inspired by God and thus true.
1:41
I heard something like a 3rd party could have written it by Moses narrating. Which it states that Moses was the meekest man of all the world, which if Moses wrote that???? Sounds like he's the narrator with a 3rd person write.
I accept input.
10) 7:03 W H A T ... so presumably St. Thomas Aquinas wrote some time after 1823?
But some are [of the faith] only "per accidens", namely insofar as they are transmitted in Writ, which Faith presumes to be promulgated by dictation of the Holy Spirit: which on the one hand can be ignored without danger by those who are not obliged to know Writ, like many historic things: and in these also the saints have sensed diversely, exposing divine Writ in different ways.
my translation of
Quaedam vero per accidens tantum, inquantum scilicet in Scriptura traduntur, quam fides supponit spiritu sancto dictante promulgatam esse: quae quidem ignorari sine periculo possunt ab his qui Scripturas scire non tenentur, sicut multa historialia: et in his etiam sancti diversa senserunt, Scripturam divinam diversimode exponentes.
Reference his comments on the Lombard, II Sent. Dist. XII q.1, a.2.
"quam fides supponit spiritu sancto dictante promulgatam esse" means precisely "which Faith presumes / supposes to be promulgated / to have been promulgated by dictation of the Holy Spirit"
And dictation is usually thought of as precisely word by word dictation.
_"This is more of a Muslim way of approaching Scripture"_
Nothing like "more of" but Mohammed plagiarised the Christian concept.
Well the simple fact that we don't have any copies of the originals, it's hard to say what "God" really said. So we're basically on the mercy of the hands of men, that could change things as they saw fit, and we wouldn't know about it..
Please consider a detail: We have archeological evidence to Hebrew writing from about 950 BC onwards (Gezer calendar etc.). Moses lifetime dates to (about) 1200 BC. There was no Hebrew writing culture by the time of Moses. He might have written Egyptian, but not Hebrew.
I need more inflection
1:47 here Genesis talks about Creation and Formation not Creation and Creation
Jesus basically says in the New Testament that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. Case closed. It doesn't matter what Modernist theologians think.
Many of the Bible literalists remind me of the Pharisees - they have the words, but not the spirit. Any time I run into one that says "if the Bible says it, it's true. If it doesn't, then it's interpretation and false." I remind them that in the Bible, God puts Adam to sleep but never says He wakes him up, or that Adam wakes up, we just "assume". Ah, interpretation. Maybe he's still asleep and this is all a dream (or nightmare).
What language did Moses use to write the Torah? A) Egyptian hieroglyphics B) Canaanite C) Hebrew D) Mesopotamian cuneiform
Hi
Hi!
How do we know Moses told, was the base, or structured the Torah. Moses could just be a legendary character that started as some leader who led the Israelite out. Details and myths formed and grew over the centuries until he became what he is now. The only thing I see as important are the stories that are used to reveal who Christ is, just like the Adamic stories for Paul in Romans.
Yea, hath God said?
Same goes for Isaiah
6) Moses certainly told stories, but probably, for Genesis, if he didn't receive it from Jethro, as he probably did with either the story or the full text of Job, he would in huge part have _received_ it from people telling the stories of some great-great-great-grandfather 215 years before the Exodus, and taken down their story. He would have been to the stories from Abraham to Joseph and his brethren what St. Luke was to the biography of Jesus -- someone taking up testimonies from others.
_Or_ he inherited the basket of papyry the Beduin tribe had been collecting since Abraham wrote down the very early chapters (except the six day account).
_"Handing on the experiences that only he would have known about"_
a) the burning bush
b) the things received on Sinai (open question if it includes only the two versions of the Decalogue, and the six day account as it stands, or whether he had a fuller account of the six days preserved in Jubilees)
c) ...?
Apart from these two, his life was very public.
_"certainly not the words he spoke"_
Again, why not "mostly the words he wrote, except when updated" instead?
The majority of scholars view Moses as a legendary figure too.
The main thing is when it comes down to the Pentatuch is what God is trying to convey and teach us through the writings we have.
Some people think that since sometimes the name for God is El and the name for God is YHWH. That the ancient Israelites were actually pagan or that there were two camps, one that worshiped El and one that worshiped YHWH. However, and the Hebrew language El just is the general term for God and YHWH IS THE SACRED NAME REVEALED TO MOSES. Like nowadays, we can say Jesus and god and mean the same thing just because they used two different words to describe their god does not mean that they worshiped two different gods
actually ancient Israelites were pagans at one time, I mean even biblical story shows that when during the voyage through the dessert some of them start worshipping idols. It's something illogical in monotheistic system. The thing is that judaism was a process that needed time to form into monotheism. From theological standpoint it doesn't invalidate it. You can simply look on it as people were worshiping false gods and 1 true God. With time true God became victorious because he was (is) true and only.
I mean you can go the muslim path and deny pagan roots, as they think that their meteor was done by Abraham (even tho we have sources of their polytheism). Nevertheless. Israelites somewhen were polytheist, but not for the reason you gave. The also stopped being ones.
Jew here. In ancient times our ancestors were polytheistic following the Canaanite gods. Then we became monolatrous worshipping only G-d, but recognizing that other gods exist. Eventually we became monotheistic only recognizing G-d’s existence. Even now our culture is different from the past because we were flung into diaspora and our Temple was destroyed. We had to adapt.
(09 May 2024)
Perhaps the presence of anchronisms in the Torah can explain who wrote the Torah and when?
Genesis 36:33 , mentions the Edomite city of Bozrah, (modern Buseirah in Jordan) when excavated by archaeologists, it was no earlier than the 8th century BC (the 700s BC).
Scripture has the book of the Law (Torah) being found by the High P)riest El-ki-ah and presented to king Josiah who ruled in the 7th century BC (the 600s BC).
How interesting, an 8th century BC Bozrah found in a 7th century BC Torah by El-ki-ah the High Priest!
May be the Torah was written by its "finder in the 7th century BC," El-ki-ah, NOT Moses circa 1406 BC BC (cf. 1 Kings 6:1)?
How likely is it that Moses who died ca. 1406 BC, would make mention of city that came into existence 700 years after his death?
Too many scholars doubt to justify their waste of time and their incompetence.
I think Father Casey could be and should be EWTN'S answer to David Muir...
The most important thing about the Torah is that it’s true.
I was taught that the Torah in its current from is the one compiled by the prophet Ezra - and so just as reliably the word of G-d as if we had Moses's original manuscript.
Can you see a Catholic archeaologist digging in Kerioth (purportedly the home village of Judas Iscariot) to look for the Aramaic gospels (Q source or the gospels of Hebrews) or would you see such a venture as inherently heretical?
This is old news. At this one catholic church I went to it was only 2 blocks from synagogue. Rabbis said same. Plus I read stuff on this.
The fact that he dies before the end is a dead giveaway he didn’t write the whole thing.
I am well familiar with and practiced in the theories of higher criticism. Nor do I, as a Catholic, subscribe to fundamentalist notions of textual inerrancy.
I do however take issue when doubts are cast, needlessly, upon sacred scripture thru conjecture formulated by postmodernist critical literary theorists over-reaching their vocation by means of unscientific and nebulous chains of evidence.
That Moses did not personally pen the events following his own death is apparent. That statement, however, is far from crying out in the public marketplace that "Moses did not write the Torah" in the shrill and condescending tone of today's scribes.
Is Mosaic authorship of the Torah more or less believable than that Moses should appear with and speak with the Lord Jesus on the holy mountain of transfiguration?
Moses wrote the Torah.
Peace be with you.