By whom and when was scripture written?

[Cam42]

Where is this going? LittleLes, YOU'VE neglected to mention that this whole Moses/Akhenaten thing is Freudian.

So, are we to believe a Theologian, like Carroll? Or are we to believe an atheist like Freud? Who has more credibility? (hint: It ain't Freud.)

Come on LittleLes, all you are doing is parroting the Freudian view put forth in [i]Moses and Monotheism.[/i] Give me a break. (Apparently, Wikipedia has become your new Catholic Encyclopedia. It isn't definitive.)

I think that this thread has run its course. All this is, is you spewing your erroneous viewpoint, and spamming the board. Occasionally, you'll get a response, but for the most part it is spam. And not even scholarly. That is why no one is engaging you.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 4 2005, 08:05 AM']Where is this going?  LittleLes, YOU'VE neglected to mention that this whole Moses/Akhenaten thing is Freudian.

So, are we to believe a Theologian, like Carroll?  Or are we to believe an atheist like Freud?  Who has more credibility?  (hint:  It ain't Freud.)

Come on LittleLes, all you are doing is parroting the Freudian view put forth in [i]Moses and Monotheism.[/i]  Give me a break.  (Apparently, Wikipedia has become your new Catholic Encyclopedia.  It isn't definitive.)

I think that this thread has run its course.  All this is, is you spewing your erroneous viewpoint, and spamming the board.  Occasionally, you'll get a response, but for the most part it is spam.  And not even scholarly.  That is why no one is engaging you.
[right][snapback]631305[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

1. Indeed, Freud had wide interests and wrote on a variety of religious matters and other subjects. Your real question should be whether he and other writers were correct in their hypotheses.

2. Warren Carroll is not a theologian. He is a historian and a former CIA employee. (Which reminds me. I owe him an e-mail to see how his latest volume is coming along).

3. No, the tread has hardly begun. We have to trace the question of by whom and when the various books of the Bible were written. We've only been dealing with the Pentateuch so far, but I plan to start book six, Joshua next.

4. Unless, of course, someone, such as yourself, is uncomfortable in dealing with the literary analysis and textual criticism of scripture and closes down the thread. On the other hand, Pope Pius XII was quite enthusiastic about such textual criticism. (See his 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu") As am I.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 10:29 AM']RESPONSE:

1.  Indeed,  Freud had wide interests and wrote on  a variety of religious matters and other subjects. Your  real question should be whether he and other writers were correct in their hypotheses.

2. Warren Carroll is not a theologian. He is a historian and a former CIA employee.  (Which reminds me. I owe him an e-mail to see how his latest volume is coming along).

3. No, the tread has hardly begun. We have to trace the question of by whom and when the various books of the Bible were written. We've only been dealing with the Pentateuch so far, but I plan to start book six, Joshua next.

4. Unless, of course, someone, such as yourself, is uncomfortable in dealing with the literary analysis and textual criticism of scripture  and closes down the thread.   On the other hand, Pope Pius XII was quite enthusiastic about such textual criticism. (See his 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu") As am I.
[right][snapback]631339[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. Freud is not a solid commentary on Catholic or Christian thought.

2. Who cares.....he has more credibility than Freud, on this matter. Incidentally, I have met Warren Carroll. He is one of the most informed Catholics I have ever met. Incidentally, he is a Theologian. He has a doctorate in History, which he has specialized in Church history. Time to rethink your position.

3. Whatever....you are talking to yourself. You are the only one who doesn't see that.

4. I am completely comfortable discussing Scripture. I am not all that interested in discussing with you. As I have said, if you will engage in a scholarly and honest manner, then I will re-engage. I have said that all along. We have been through all of this before. You are rehashing your issues. Divino Afflante Spiritu? We discussed that months ago. We proved you wrong months ago.

Oh, I know, your party-line......"You have proven nothing" and "Following the party line is not proof." Whatever.......you are predictable and not even worth the effort. Out.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 09:29 AM']
4. Unless, of course, someone, such as yourself, is uncomfortable in dealing with the literary analysis and textual criticism of scripture  and closes down the thread.  On the other hand, Pope Pius XII was quite enthusiastic about such textual criticism. (See his 1943 encyclical "Divino Afflante Spiritu") As am I.
[right][snapback]631339[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Nice back-handed way to besmirch anyone who might actually close the thread for any reason Littleles.


Just one more reason.

[LittleLes]

Moving along then with the authorship and time of writing of Joshua, the sixth book of the Bible.

Tradition has it that Joshua, the successor to Moses, wrote this sixth book, but modern holders of the Documentary Hyposthesis credit the Deuteronomist writing about 722 - 622 B.C.

There are a number of problems with authorship by Joshua. For example:

(1) As with Deuteronomy 34:5-9 dealing extensively with the death of Moses, Joshua 24:29-31 deals with the death and burial of Joshua. It doesn't seem very likely that either wrote these accounts.

(2) Joshua 11:21 is guilty of an anachronism: " At that time Joshua came and wiped out the Anakim from the hill country, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the hill country of Judah, and from all the hill country of Israel; Joshua utterly destroyed them with their towns"

The problem here is that the Judah and Israel, the northern and southern kingdoms, were created after the death of King David long after Joshua.

(3) There are 13 instances of the use of the phrase "...to this day" in Joshua. For example: 4:9 "they are there to this day." 5:9 "called Gilgal to this day," 7:26 "to this day the name of that place is called the Valley of Ashor," and 8:28 "a heap of ruins as it is to this day." etc.

The use of "to this day" implies that the account is refering to something happening in the past. Not a current account.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 4 2005, 10:04 AM']
  Who cares.....he has more credibility than Freud, on this matter.  Incidentally, I have met Warren Carroll.  He is one of the most informed Catholics I have ever met.  Incidentally, he is a Theologian.  He has a doctorate in History, which he has specialized in Church history.  Time to rethink your position.


[/quote]

RESPONSE:

There are a number of biographies of Dr. Warren Carroll on the web. As far as I can see, none claim that he was ever a theologian or trained in theology. For example:

"Warren is considered a leader in the restoration of orthodox Catholic liberal arts education in America. He started Christendom College in 1977 with 26 students and $50,000 in the bank from a rented building in Triangle. He remained president until 1985 and served as history department chairman until his retirement in 2002. "

Please present your evidence to support your claim that Dr. Warren Carroll is also a theologian.

He's a very orthodox Catholic historian, not a theologian. He writes history from the orthodox Catholic perspective.

Littleles

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 03:45 PM']RESPONSE:

There are a number of biographies of Dr. Warren Carroll on the web. As far as I can see, none claim that he was ever a theologian or trained in theology. For example:

"Warren is considered a leader in the restoration of orthodox Catholic liberal arts education in America. He started Christendom College in 1977 with 26 students and $50,000 in the bank from a rented building in Triangle. He remained president until 1985 and served as history department chairman until his retirement in 2002. "

Please present  your evidence to support your claim that Dr. Warren Carroll is also a theologian.

He's a very orthodox Catholic historian, not a theologian. He writes history from the orthodox Catholic perspective.

Littleles
[right][snapback]631543[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Whatever. :sigh: Why do I even bother?

[url="http://www.christendom.edu/news/archives/archives02/carroll.shtml"]Dr. Warren H. Carroll[/url] taught a class called [i]History and Theology of Pope John Paul II[/i] and taught about [i]the great theological battle over “homoousios vs homoiousios.”[/i]

Again, you are looking foolish with all that egg on your face.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 4 2005, 05:06 PM']Whatever.  :sigh:  Why do I even bother?

[url="http://www.christendom.edu/news/archives/archives02/carroll.shtml"]Dr. Warren H. Carroll[/url] taught a class called [i]History and Theology of Pope John Paul II[/i] and taught about [i]the great theological battle over “homoousios vs homoiousios.”[/i]

Again, you are looking foolish with all that egg on your face.  
[right][snapback]631645[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You still haven't given us Dr. Carroll's credential in theology. Teaching a course labeled "Theology" obviosuly isn't proof that the teacher is a qualified theologian.

And aren't you overlooking 1 Kings 6:1:
"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD."

That would make the date of the Exodus 1443 B.C.

I believe your Dr. Carroll quotation is taken from his "Founding of Christendom."

"There is now general agreement among scholars that the Exodus took place during the thirteenth century (1300-1200) B.C.; former support for the earlier date, around the time of Akhenaten or even before, has dwindled away.

Perhaps you are missing the fact that here Dr. Carroll is dismissing 1 King 6:1's dating as fictional.

But I agree with Dr. Carroll on this point.

Apparently you have missed the claim he makes or have chosen to ignor the obvious contradiction.

Edited July 4, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 06:55 PM']RESPONSE:

You still haven't given us Dr. Carroll's credential in theology. Teaching a course labeled "Theology" obviosuly isn't proof that the teacher is a qualified theologian.

And aren't you overlooking 1 Kings 6:1:
"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD." 

That would make the date of the Exodus 1443 B.C.

I believe  your Dr.  Carroll quotation  is taken from his "Founding of Christendom."

"There is now general agreement among scholars that the Exodus took place during the thirteenth century (1300-1200) B.C.; former support for the earlier date, around the time of Akhenaten or even before, has dwindled away.

Perhaps you are missing the fact that here Dr. Carroll is dismissing 1 King 6:1's dating as  fictional.

But I agree with Dr. Carroll on this point.

Apparently you have missed the claim he makes or have chosen to ignor the obvious contradiction.
[right][snapback]631685[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

blah blah blah

[Semperviva]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 05:55 PM']RESPONSE:

You still haven't given us Dr. Carroll's credential in theology. Teaching a course labeled "Theology" obviosuly isn't proof that the teacher is a qualified theologian.

And aren't you overlooking 1 Kings 6:1:
"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD." 

That would make the date of the Exodus 1443 B.C.

I believe  your Dr.  Carroll quotation  is taken from his "Founding of Christendom."

"There is now general agreement among scholars that the Exodus took place during the thirteenth century (1300-1200) B.C.; former support for the earlier date, around the time of Akhenaten or even before, has dwindled away.

Perhaps you are missing the fact that here Dr. Carroll is dismissing 1 King 6:1's dating as  fictional.

But I agree with Dr. Carroll on this point.

Apparently you have missed the claim he makes or have chosen to ignor the obvious contradiction.
[right][snapback]631685[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


i completely disagree with dr. carroll on moses and the exodus and thats fine...his whole exodus section was carp...just my opinion

[Cam42]

[quote]I believe your Dr. Carroll quotation is taken from his "Founding of Christendom."[/quote]

What are you talking about? I didn't quote Dr. Carroll on anything.

I set a course he taught apart by italics and I also set a train of thought apart by same plus quotation marks. There is no direct quote.

You are losing it.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 4 2005, 09:30 PM']What are you talking about?  I didn't quote Dr. Carroll on anything.

I set a course he taught apart by italics and I also set a train of thought apart by same plus quotation marks.  There is no direct quote.

You are losing it.
[right][snapback]631811[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

You are correct. It was originally Socrates quoting Dr. Carroll. Thus:


"There is now general agreement among scholars that the Exodus took place during the thirteenth century (1300-1200) B.C.; former support for the earlier date, around the time of Akhenaten or even before, has dwindled away. The evidence of the building of Pithom and Ramses in the first quarter of the centry (1300-1275), together with the stele of the Pharoah Merneptah (c. 1220 B.C.) locating Israel outside Egypt -- but as a wandering nation, not yet settled--and the remarkable accumalation of archeological evidence indicating a destructive conquest of Central Palestine shortly before 1200 B.C., unite to provide a convincing case. Unless we do drastic violence to the text of the Book od Exodus, a very substantial time must be allotted to the Exodus events--time for a whole generation to grow old and die in the wilderness. . . . Therefore the most probable hypothesis is that the Exodus occurred during the the first half of the long reign of Ramses II, about 1275 B.C."

So many errors! So little time to keep track of such a volume. No wonder I confused messages.

But please note that Dr. Carroll is here disputing 1 Kings 6:1 which dates Exodus at about 1443 B.C. Actually I think Dr. Carroll's dating is reasonable, not 1 Kings 6:1. That's assuming there was a exodus as described rather than a series of small migrations.

Sorry for the mis-attribution.

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 4 2005, 08:06 PM']i completely disagree with dr. carroll on moses and the exodus and thats fine...his whole exodus section was carp...just my opinion
[right][snapback]631761[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?

Do you mean that you accept the Atkenaten hypothesis as possible?

LittleLes

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 4 2005, 07:37 AM']"There is now general agreement among scholars that the Exodus took place during the thirteenth century (1300-1200) B.C.; former support for the earlier date, around the time of Akhenaten or even before, has dwindled away.  The evidence of the building of Pithom and Ramses in the first quarter of the centry (1300-1275), together with the stele of the Pharoah Merneptah (c. 1220 B.C.) locating Israel outside Egypt -- but as a wandering nation, not yet settled--and the remarkable accumalation of archeological evidence indicating a destructive conquest of Central Palestine shortly before 1200 B.C., unite to provide a convincing case.  Unless we do drastic violence to the text of the Book od Exodus, a very substantial time must be allotted to the Exodus events--time for a whole generation to grow old and die in the wilderness.  . . .
Warren Carroll

RESPONSE:

You neglect to mention that Warren Carroll is the founder of the very conservative Christendom University and is an strong apologist for the Catholic Church's version of history, which, not too suprisingly ,supports the Church's "party line."[/quote]


Nice job with the ad hominem. I happen to have been a student of Dr. Carroll. As usual, you reject any sources you do not agree with your own anti-Catholic prejudices. Anyone who agrees with the Catholic Church must automatically be dismissed in the LittleLes game, while any half-cocked hypothesis of some modernist, you take as gospel truth!

Your game of only regarding as legit people who happen to agree with your own views is hardly a sign of objectivity!

And, for the record, Dr. Carroll is a historian, not a theologian, and was not orginally Catholic nor Christian, but his study of history led him to convert to the Catholic Faith.

[quote]But lets look at what he admits.

"Therefore the most probable hypothesis is that the Exodus occurred during the the first half of the long reign of Ramses II, about 1275 B.C."

If Carroll is correct, he is evidencing  that 1 Kings 6.1 is  clearly in error although claimed to be an inspired writing. 1 Kings 6:1 puts  the date of the Exodus at about 1430 B.C., as I previously pointed out.

"In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD." Do the math!

But you have overlooked  the obvious. The biblical account was written between 922 and 722 B.C., much after the fact so the exact date of Akhenaten's reign is not really the issue. Only that the general facts of his story were remembered in the 922 - 722 B.C. time frame and included when the Pentatauch was written by the J and E source.

LittleLes
[right][snapback]631298[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Everything you've posited on this thread is hypothesis without evidence.

The (non-Christian) historian Kenneth Kitchen has concluded from his research that the events of the Exodus are like those recorded in the Bible, rather than those posited by the modernist revisionist orthodoxy

[quote]If some of the results reached here approximate to a traditional viuew or seem to agree with theological orthodoxy, then this is simply because the tradition in question or that orthodxy are that much closer to the real facts than is commonly realized.  While one must never prefer mere orthodoxy to truth, it is also perverse to deny that orthodox beleifs can be true.[/quote]

And there remains no evidence for the "J, E, P, D" authorship theory.
From the same source:

[quote]Nowhere in the whole of Ancient Near Eastern history has the literary, religious, and historical development of a nation been subjected to such drastic and wholesale reconstruction at such variance with the existing documentary evidence  The fact that Old Terstament scholars are habituated to these widely known reconstructions, even mentally conditioned by them, does not alter the basic gravity of the situation which should not be taken for granted . . .  Even the most ardent advocates of the documentary theorymust admit that we have as yet [i]no single scrap [/i]of extent, objective (i.e. [i]tangible[/i]) evidence for either the existence or the history of "J," "E," or any other alleged source-document.[/quote]


Hebrew dating is not always exact, and you still have no evidence for your Akhenaten theory. Even if you allow for lots of embellishment, confusing Moses with a Pharoah is just absurd!
. . .

[Socrates]

[quote name='Semperviva' date='Jul 4 2005, 08:06 PM']i completely disagree with dr. carroll on moses and the exodus and thats fine...his whole exodus section was carp...just my opinion
[right][snapback]631761[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Semperviva, do you have anything to contribute to this debate, or do you just want to insult Dr. Carroll's scholarship?

Or are you just trying to cozy up to LittleLes?