Moses Didn't Part The Sea. It Was Just Really Windy.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1314392898' post='2295444']
The one I keep hearing about is the story of the loaves and the fishes not being a miracle of Jesus but the people taking out the food that they were hiding and sharing with one another after seeing the wintess of the boy who shared his fish and bread. If Our Lord can calm a storm with His Hand, walk on water, heal the sick, raise people from the dead, and the raise from the dead Himself then multiplying fish and bread for five thousand people shouldn't be a surprise.
[/quote]

I was going to ask "Is this the same crowd that dismisses the multiplication of loaves and fishes" as "the miracle of sharing", but you beat me to it.

Or is it also the same crowd that states that Elijah was taken away by an alien spaceship, and that the Nephilim that mated with women in Genesis were not angels but rather alien visitors from another planet? Or that the resurrection only occurred in the minds of the apostles, and that the Last Supper was a later invention? Or those that would break down the Greek to state that Jesus did not walk on the sea but rather "on/by the seashore"?

Although reconciling faith and science is an interest of mine, aren't we taking this TOO far? If we explain away everything, where is the Divine power? Remember, miracles were meant to be credentials for Jesus' divinity.

[vee]

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.


St Thomas Aquinas

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='scardella' timestamp='1314389807' post='2295402']
God did it. I don't care how. That's His job.
[/quote]
Absolutely

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1314394273' post='2295465']

I am totally with you on this, especially given how important the oral tradition and storytelling is/was to the Jewish people.

Though I have to ask, given that viewpoint: If all of that can be embellished and folklore used to teach, why is the Resurrection to be taken literally? And why are you comfortable with that being true?

I've been struggling terribly with this over that past several months. I read the OT as teaching tools and allegory. I've always struggled to take the NT miracles -- indeed, the whole of our faith -- as literal and historical. I want to believe, but as I'm sure you can understand, it's super farfetched.

Not trying to play Devil's advocate or anything ... this is something I've been grappling with for a long time. It's doing a number on my faith.
[/quote]
I'm not trying to deny the historicity of Moses or that the Jewish people left Egypt. I have no problem with their being miracles to accomplish this, though I don't confine that to mean things that can't be explained by other means. God works through creation, and the timing was still miraculous. It's like the story of the person waiting to be rescued by God, but who ignores the boat and helicopter offering to rescue him. Or like the fact that I have no problem with saying both that God created and that evolution is viable and the earth is billions of years old. There does come a point where the explanations are rather more ridiculous than the actual story, IMO.

Now, I'm not sure of there being evidence for a mass exodus all at once, or wandering through the desert for 40 years. It's possible we simply haven't found those things yet, of course.

With the resurrection, though, we have more than just some Jews relating a story, because there are other sources as well.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1314394273' post='2295465']

I am totally with you on this, especially given how important the oral tradition and storytelling is/was to the Jewish people.

Though I have to ask, given that viewpoint: If all of that can be embellished and folklore used to teach, why is the Resurrection to be taken literally? And why are you comfortable with that being true?

I've been struggling terribly with this over that past several months. I read the OT as teaching tools and allegory. I've always struggled to take the NT miracles -- indeed, the whole of our faith -- as literal and historical. I want to believe, but as I'm sure you can understand, it's super farfetched.

Not trying to play Devil's advocate or anything ... this is something I've been grappling with for a long time. It's doing a number on my faith.
[/quote]
Personally, I have reason to believe the Gospels reflect eye-witness testimony to a large extent and have real historical reliability in a closer-to-modern sense; et cetera. The first book I ever read to this effect was [i]The Historical Reliability of the Gospels[/i] by Blomberg. I would also recommend checking out works by scholars such as Wright, Bauckham and Licona if you're really into it. There are some super interesting dialogues with unbelieving scholars too.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='vee8' timestamp='1314425083' post='2295745']
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.


St Thomas Aquinas
[/quote]
As far as the reliability of the NT is concerned I think there is a compelling case, but on its own I can't see it convincing an unbeliever. They could scoop up the latest popular book by someone like Ehrman and renew their disbelief. If I had not encountered Christ, and lacked experiential and "illative" reasons to believe, I imagine I'd be inclined to the more skeptical and incredulous side of the debate.

[Winchester]

It was just really windy at the right time.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1314466938' post='2295882']
It was just really windy at the right time.
[/quote]
Baked beans and beer?
By the way I was lost in the desert for 40 years!

Edited August 27, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1314480655' post='2295998']
Baked beans and beer?
By the way I was lost in the desert for 40 years!
[/quote]

[tinytherese]

Some people are like Pharoah, they have a hardened heart and simply refuse to believe.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1314312104' post='2294920']
I hope I'm not the only Catholic around here who is okay with the exodus account being less than true in a modern historical sense (to put it mildly). Given the mountain of information provided by source criticism and other disciplines, how tenable is such an idea, really? I tend to view much of the Pentateuch as a kind of theological historical fiction; edited and redacted perhaps many times. I'm not a biblical scholar, and I don't have a problem with people who hold a more pious viewpoint, I just wonder if I'm alone here.

And no, I don't find outlandish physical explanations of the Exodus miracles to be compelling; I think it is far more parsimonious to simply interpret the stories as being theologically embellished, as if often suggested by internal evidence. Generally speaking, this also seems a reasonable alternative to miraculous explanations, which in my opinion are effectively ruled out when a natural explanation is clearly adequate.
[/quote]
I tend to put little faith in "source criticism" and such, which is often really little more than opinionizing to "debunk" the Bibles claims of the supernatural and miraculous, and has often been used to "debunk" the miraculous claims of the Gospel including the virgin birth, miracles, and Resurrection of Christ Himself. As others have noted, later archaeological evidence has often proved many of the claims of the "de-mythologizers' to be themselves bunk.

The Church has always traditionally regarded Exodus as being a real historical account of real events in salvation history, and I think it is wisest to stay with with this traditional understanding, rather than attempt to dismiss everything miraculous as mere "theol

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1314312104' post='2294920']
I hope I'm not the only Catholic around here who is okay with the exodus account being less than true in a modern historical sense (to put it mildly). Given the mountain of information provided by source criticism and other disciplines, how tenable is such an idea, really? I tend to view much of the Pentateuch as a kind of theological historical fiction; edited and redacted perhaps many times. I'm not a biblical scholar, and I don't have a problem with people who hold a more pious viewpoint, I just wonder if I'm alone here.

And no, I don't find outlandish physical explanations of the Exodus miracles to be compelling; I think it is far more parsimonious to simply interpret the stories as being theologically embellished, as if often suggested by internal evidence. Generally speaking, this also seems a reasonable alternative to miraculous explanations, which in my opinion are effectively ruled out when a natural explanation is clearly adequate.
[/quote]
I tend to put little faith in "source criticism" and such, which is often really little more than opinionizing to "debunk" the Bibles claims of the supernatural and miraculous, and has often been used to "debunk" the miraculous claims of the Gospel including the virgin birth, miracles, and Resurrection of Christ Himself. As others have noted, later archaeological evidence has often proved many of the claims of the "de-mythologizers' to be themselves bunk.

The Church has always traditionally regarded Exodus as being a real historical account of real events in salvation history, and I think it is wisest to stay with with this traditional understanding, rather than attempt to dismiss everything miraculous as mere "theological fiction."

While I don't think Catholics need to take a strict fundamentalist literalist reading of every single part of the Bible, attempting to dismiss its historical accounts as mere fiction or allegory seems to often be a slippery slope towards denying key elements of the Faith.
After all, plenty of "liberal Christians" have taken that same approach to claim the same of the events in the Gospel, such as the Virgin Birth and Resurrection, claiming it to all be unhistorical myth and allegory boiling down to the point that Jesus was a really nice guy, and we should be too.

Also, if, as you indicate elsewhere, you believe the Gospel accounts of Christ to be true, and do believe that God Himself literally became Man, being born to a Virgin, and was killed and literally rose from the dead, why should we not believe that God performed much lesser miracles such as parting the Red Sea?

Whether we like it or not, the Christian Faith (in any meaningful sense of the term) involves belief in miracles and God's direct intervention in human history, and there is really no good reason for a Catholic to deny the miraculous as recorded in the inerrant Word of God.

Also, if Old Testament history -- such as the reality of Adam and Eve and their fall, and the salvation history of God's Chosen People -- is nothing but religious fiction, then much of the reason for Christ's saving mission becomes nonsensical.

(Please disregard previous post - technical issues.)

[Lilllabettt]

So basically the headline here is that science has proved the authenticity of the Bible as a record of historical events.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1314383499' post='2295337']
Not at all. I'd tend to agree. I was just pointing out that one can't say that an absence of archaeological evidence indicates that something didn't happen, and that one can't take Egyptian texts at face value historically. Now, I think it unlikely that we just haven't found any evidence of 40 years in the desert, given that desert conditions tend to preserve things and a large group of people would be certain to leave behind something, graves or otherwise. It's also important to consider that history as we conceive it is a relatively recent development. History in ancient times wasn't intended to give an actual play-by-play of events, but to convey a truth and show the divine working in the world and influencing events. Homer's The Iliad isn't an aberration or just for amusement, but how histories were often composed.
[/quote]
The ancient Egyptian Pharaohs ruled as absolute god-kings, revered as gods in human flesh. The events of Exodus would have been an extreme embarrassment to the Pharoah, and he would likely not allow such events to be recorded in his kingdom for posterity.

I realize that in itself will not likely convince one already opposed to the historical truth of the events of Exodus, but it does provide a compelling reason for why we do not have Egyptian records of those events.

It also seems extremely unlikely that the Hebrew people would have simply made up the most pivotal and important events in their history out of thin air.

(And if the stories of Exodus were simply made up fairy tales to glorify their own people, why would they ever admit to being enslaved by the Egyptians in the first place? It would make more sense to portray themselves as being unconquerable and slaves to none.)

[Laudate_Dominum]

Rather than quote you thirty five times I'll just do a Fr. Z type of thing. [color=#000080][b]My text in blue.[/b][/color]


I tend to put little faith in "source criticism" and such [color=#000080][b]- Indeed. The sway of Biblical scholarship should be based on evidence and explanatory power, not faith. Tempered and guided by faith perhaps, but the scholarship is not an object of faith. -[/b][/color] , which is often really little more than opinionizing to "debunk" the Bibles claims of the supernatural and miraculous [color=#000080][b]- that is not an accurate description of the scholarship that I've been exposed to -[/b][/color] , and has often been used to "debunk" the miraculous claims of the Gospel including the virgin birth, miracles, and Resurrection of Christ Himself [color=#000080][b]- I took classes on the OT from a very orthodox and learned biblical scholar, not the Jesus Seminar. Also, I must stress that the Pentateuch and the Gospels are apples and oranges -[/b][/color] . As others have noted, later archaeological evidence has often proved many of the claims of the "de-mythologizers' to be themselves bunk [color=#000080][b]- Sounds fair I guess -[/b][/color] .

The Church has always traditionally regarded Exodus as being a real historical account of real events in salvation history [color=#000080][b]- "always, traditionally regarded" okay, so is it doctrine? no. so what's your point? That could be said about many popular opinions that are no longer tenable. -[/b][/color] , and I think it is wisest to stay with with this traditional understanding, rather than attempt to dismiss everything miraculous as mere "theological fiction." [color=#000080][b]- That's not what's happening though. The fact is, there are compelling reasons to attenuate the historicity of the Exodus account. I can recall parsing the Hebrew and examining clear evidence of redaction history, comparing it with older biblical references to the Exodus, getting at the nature of the genre, and lots of other things. It isn't just some flippant opinion; I was compelled to believe that the Exodus account is less than historical in our sense based on a preponderance of evidence. I'm not dogmatic about this, and if I were to learn of some better explanation for the Exodus account (one that takes into account all the evidence of course), I would change my view. I'm not a Scripture scholar and I studied this text many years ago so I would feel presumptuous in trying to expound upon the details off-the-cuff. -[/b][/color]

While I don't think Catholics need to take a strict fundamentalist literalist reading of every single part of the Bible [color=#000080][b]- Agreed -[/b][/color], attempting to dismiss its historical accounts as mere fiction or allegory [color=#000080][b]- Again, this isn't something I'm "attempting" to do. It isn't a plot or an agenda, it's just my opinion based primarily on college courses at a conservative Catholic school coupled with the bits of related reading I've done over the years. If you're aware of some amesome text that makes an informed and scholarly case for the historicity of the Exodus account I'd be interested in checking it out. -[/b][/color] seems to often be a slippery slope towards denying key elements of the Faith [color=#000080][b]- I can understand this concern. I have felt that way about whack scholarship. -[/b][/color] .
After all, plenty of "liberal Christians" have taken that same approach to claim the same of the events in the Gospel, such as the Virgin Birth and Resurrection, claiming it to all be unhistorical myth and allegory boiling down to the point that Jesus was a really nice guy, and we should be too [color=#000080][b]- Exodus and the Gospels are in totally different ballparks. I can appreciate the concern but in this particular case I don't share it. -[/b][/color].

Also, if, as you indicate elsewhere, you believe the Gospel accounts of Christ to be true, and do believe that God Himself literally became Man, being born to a Virgin, and was killed and literally rose from the dead, why should we not believe that God performed much lesser miracles such as parting the Red Sea? [color=#000080][b]- Agreed. And there was a time when I did accept the parting of the Red Sea without question. That class on the Old Testament that I alluded to above was probably my first sustained exposure to a learned understanding of the Pentateuch. Maybe you would say I was corrupted by liberal scholarship, but I have reason to believe that said professor is actually very conservative and orthodox. I am sure that some of the books I've read were liberal but I don't think I read them uncritically. -[/b][/color]

Whether we like it or not, the Christian Faith (in any meaningful sense of the term) involves belief in miracles and God's direct intervention in human history, and there is really no good reason for a Catholic to deny the miraculous as recorded in the inerrant Word of God. [color=#000080][b]- Myth and history were not mutually exclusive in the ancient near east and it would be anachronistic and unfair to read these accounts uncritically with the expectation that the original author(s) shared your sensibilities and categories. -[/b] [/color]

Also, if Old Testament history -- such as the reality of Adam and Eve and their fall, and the salvation history of God's Chosen People -- is nothing but religious fiction, [color=#000080][b]- I would not say that it is "nothing but," I think there is a lot of history in the Pentateuch (and of course the OT as a whole), but one must be aware of, and sensitive to, the literary form in which that history is cast. I'm okay with leveraging the tools we have available to that effect. [/b][/color][color=#000080][b]-[/b][/color] then much of the reason for Christ's saving mission becomes nonsensical [color=#000080][b]- I can agree that a rejection of Adam and Eve and their fall would be a very serious thing; 'twould be an epic fail. I haven't intended to propose such a thing here. -[/b][/color].

(Please disregard previous post - technical issues.) [color=#000080][b]- NP -[/b][/color]

[color=#000080][b]Again, I'm not even close to an expert on this kind of thing and I think trying to debate through all the issues here is not feasible. If you have some book or books that represent and strongly support your viewpoint I'd be interested. I'm quite okay with being wrong on this. Peace.[/b][/color]

Edited August 28, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1314502213' post='2296159']
The ancient Egyptian Pharaohs ruled as absolute god-kings, revered as gods in human flesh. The events of Exodus would have been an extreme embarrassment to the Pharoah, and he would likely not allow such events to be recorded in his kingdom for posterity.

I realize that in itself will not likely convince one already opposed to the historical truth of the events of Exodus, but it does provide a compelling reason for why we do not have Egyptian records of those events.

It also seems extremely unlikely that the Hebrew people would have simply made up the most pivotal and important events in their history out of thin air.

(And if the stories of Exodus were simply made up fairy tales to glorify their own people, why would they ever admit to being enslaved by the Egyptians in the first place? It would make more sense to portray themselves as being unconquerable and slaves to none.)
[/quote]
I'm well aware of why the Egyptians wouldn't have recorded the events, or at the very least wouldn't have recorded them in such a way as to reflect badly on them. I thought I'd noted that, but evidently not. Sorry. It's interesting looking at the Egyptian account of the Battle of Kadesh; to read it, one would think it was an overwhelming victory for the Egyptians when that was far from being the case.

I'm also not denying that Moses existed or that the Jewish nation left Egypt or whatnot. I'd be inclined to think that they came to Egypt under the Hyksos rule and left sometime during the New Kingdom when Egyptian power was being reasserted in the Delta and so those of Near Eastern descent were leaving. At least that would make sense to me, but thankfully it doesn't really matter what makes sense to me.

As L_D notes, this isn't something that is dogmatic/doctrinal, and if I'm wrong, that's OK. I've no doubt that God could've done all that just how it's written, but I also think it's good to take into account the culture and writing styles of the time, as well as remembering that history had a different purpose and definition in ancient times. I personally would think there would be some trace of a whole nation of people wandering in the desert for 40 years, though, especially given that there have been many archaeologists looking for evidence, but it's also possible that we just haven't hit upon the right locations yet. I mean, we're not even sure that the "Sea of Reeds" is the Red Sea, to my knowledge.