"There is Nothing New Under the Sun"

"What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done." - Ecclesiastes 1:9

"There is Nothing New Under the Sun"

It is often thought that contemporary secular understandings of Biblical studies and philosophy are majorly innovative. Indeed, in both histories of Biblical scholarship and histories of philosophy, one will often find a specific section speaking of the Enlightenment as a great time of change from the past. Biblical Studies textbooks will even often begin speaking about Historical-Critical scholarship with Spinoza and Hobbes (at least for the Pentateuch). That the Enlightenment had a strong break from earlier understandings is in no way controversial. I do not seek to deny that modern philosophy, Higher Criticism (the study of the Bible from naturalistic assumptions that often seek to overturn tradition), or scientific understandings are in any way simply a rehashing of ancient ideas or that it is not new. On the other hand, I think it is a mistake for Christians to look at  naturalism or modern Higher Critical theories as if they were new ideas developed by fellow Christians just working through problems with great intellectual honesty. 

As such, I will try to make three main points: First, modern understandings of Philosophy and the Bible originated in pagan thought and anti-Christian polemic respectively. Second, those who brought these ideas back into intellectual life in the 17th Century and beyond did so with a hostile intent.  Third, we should not seek to reconcile them to Christian faith unless they are better proven than they are now. 

Biblical Studies

Though much of what I will say about Philosophy here is relatively common knowledge, I think most people do not know that modern Higher Criticism are rooted in Ancient anti-Christian polemics. Indeed, as I said before, most modern Biblical Studies Textbooks (such as John J. Collins' Introduction to the Hebrew Bible) will begin their discussion of Higher Criticism with Spinoza and Hobbes or other Enlightenment thinkers. This creates a sort of convenient Creation Myth for skeptical Biblical Scholars: new interpretations will lead us to ideas that are different from traditional ones, more rational, but we can still be considered Christian in some vague sense. (Spinoza was a pantheist, and Hobbes claimed not to be an atheist, though neither could really be said to be orthodox in their views) It also acts as a type of Trojan Horse either knowingly or unknowingly, where as Christians we may think that these ideas came out of discussion among people of a Judeo-Christian background seeking answers to pressing questions that the text presents. This is why they will often mention bits of doubts that earlier Christian or Jewish interpreters of Scripture about Mosaic Authorship or the Pauline Authorship of Hebrews - it gives a type of "Orthodox glaze" to their theories. This is I think why Kenton Sparks and Peter Enns are able to get so many people interested in "Believing Criticism" - they do not speak of the origins of their ideas. 

Indeed, few will know that the first person to deny Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch and Danielic Authorship of Daniel was not Spinoza, but Porphyry, a neoPlatonist of the 3rd Century AD: 

"Porphyry wanted to prevent the conversion of cultured people to Christianity, and he endeavored to show that the Christian religion was illogical, ignoble, involved in contradictions, etc. He made a special point of attacking the Bible and the Christian exegesis, and it is interesting to observe his anticipation of Higher Criticism, e.g. by denying the authenticity of the book of Daniel and declaring the prophecies therein contained to be vaticinia ex event, denying that the Pentateuch was by Moses, pointing out apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in the Gospels, etc. The Divinity of Christ was a particular point of attack, and he brought many arguments against the Divinity of Christ and the doctrines of Christ." (A History of Philosophy, Volume 1, Frederick Copleston, pages 474-475)

(I would eventually like to write here to give a defense of Mosaic Authorship and the authenticity of the book of Daniel, but this is not the place) This shows two things. First, that it's not a new set of ideas. Second, that such an idea would have been seen as a proof against Christianity. (if it was just an interesting thing to help exegesis, he probably would not have mentioned it) Of course, it is true that theologians like Saint Jerome did accept the existence of Post-Mosaica (emendations to the Pentateuch to keep the text understandable and current - it would have been written in a Hebrew that nobody could understand and with place names that nobody would know if it had not been updated by Joshua and Ezra). On the other hand, he would certainly have rejected Porphyry's ideas or the modern version, the Documentary Hypothesis. Christ Himself said that Moses wrote it (John 5:46-47), so it would seem at least at face value, that it would be theologically important. As Christians we ought to be able to believe God in the flesh, and so it's easy to see why Porphyry would argue in this direction. 

If Porphyry had originated these ideas and the later thinkers to adopt them were simply convinced Christian theologians trying to do their jobs, we would have little reason to be concerned by the conclusions. (Scott Hahn has a book on the subject of the political nature of Higher Criticism, which I have not read but would like to eventually) Now, one may be suppose that what I am saying here is a type of genetic fallacy: belief x originated from y source, and y source is bad, so x belief is bad. This is not the case though. My suggestion is that a belief that begins to exist to overturn a certain opinion is likely destructive to said view. 

The later thinkers to hold to these views were also largely opposed to religious orthodoxy. While Thomas Hobbes was a theist (at least he said he was) and a supporter of Cromwell's Commonwealth, he was not interested in matters of faith, and his ideas on politics were certainly secular. (his support for Cromwell seems to be more based on his ability to maintain order than his religious policies) He argued that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch. 

Likewise, Baruch Spinoza was opposed to Mosaic authorship and to the historicity of prophecies. While any real motivations for this are vague in Hobbes' case, it is clear why Spinoza would have wanted to think this. He was opposed to the idea of miracles on a quasi-theological level. (Craig Keener's book Miracles (Volume 1) and William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith both have assessments of Spinoza's arguments against miracles)  He held that a proof for the existence of a god (not the God of Christianity in any way) ought to be based on the predictability of nature, and that therefore any violations would be violations of the will of said god. (this is an oversimplification of one of the arguments)

Further thinkers based these arguments on the principles of Hegel's idea of dialectics. This is perhaps why German scholars were those who 'pioneered' Higher Criticism (as if it were a good thing). For example, Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis (the idea that 4 authors or sets of authors wrote the Pentateuch in separate sources which were then expertly but visibly spliced together over 400 years or so) In his dating of each of the four sources, we see a clear progression of religious belief and practice. What is important to recognize is that this is before stronger sciences could have supported his conclusions, and these views are not based on objective analysis from linguistics or archaeology, but instead subjective ideas surrounding themes. It is often also pointed out that many of these German Higher Critics were anti-Semites motivated by a desire to 'show' the New Testament to be entirely separate and superior to the Old. (where instead both are God's Word)

Someone looking at the motivations of the critics will likely see why the conclusions are often contrary to Christian orthodoxy. 

Philosophy

Philosophy is less clear cut. While the ideas of Biblical criticism have their origin in the Christian era as anti-Christian polemic, the foundations for modern naturalistic thought come from ideas not only before Christ, but at times before Socrates. Further, many of these pagan thinkers are very useful for Christian theology. (for example, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus) 

That said, a few specific thinkers ought to be considered here:

First, Anaximander had his own early precursor to the theory of Evolution. 

"Life comes from the sea, and by means of adaption to environment the present forms of animals were evolved. Anaximander makes a clever guess as to the origin of man. "...he further says that in the beginning man was born from animals of another species, for while other animals quickly find nourishment for themselves, man alone needs a lengthy period of suckling, so that had he been originally as he is now, he could never have survived." He does not explain - a perennial difficulty for evolutionists - how man survived in the transitional stage." (A History of Philosophy, Volume 1, Frederick Copleston, page 25)

Of course the evidence then was nonexistent, while there is much more now, but it is interesting to see how this idea that is supposedly meant to destroy Christianity was indeed circulated before the Faith even began. 

Second, the Atomists such as Democritus held to the idea that all that exists is made up of small particles moving in space called 'atoms:'

"According to Leucippus and Democritus there are an infinite number of indivisible units, which are called atoms. These are imperceptible, since they are too small to be perceived by the senses. The atoms differ in size and shape, but have no quality save that of solidity impenetrability. Infinite in number, they move in the void." 

"Cicero  relates the same, and also declares that according to Democritus there is no "top" or "bottom" or "middle" in the void." (A History of Philosophy, Volume 1, Frederick Copleston, page 73)

Even the Logical Problem of Evil has an ancient vintage, being invented by Epicurus. 

Conclusion

It seems that some ancient ideas that later became fundamental to modern doctrines such as those of Higher Criticism are inherently antagonistic towards Christianity. (In Where the Conflict Really Lies, Alvin Plantinga seems to say that it's not as big an issue for theologians, and I think reconciliation would be possible if it were necessary, but in the end it would be a great blow for theology to show the truth of any of these theories) Likewise, evolution can be seen as a problem for the truth of the Christian religion, however I think the two can be reconciled without too much problem. (Francis Collins' site Biologos has many good articles on the specific issues, while Dr. Edward Feser has a few good essays on the subject on his blog) In the end though, we must understand that some of these ideas are aimed against Christianity, while others exist that create questions but are essentially reconcilable despite their pagan origins. 

Critical Harry Potter Scholarship - Or why J.K. Rowling could not have written Harry Potter

It's certain now, JK Rowling could not have written Harry Potter. In fact, this is no longer a hypothesis, it's a fact. Using Historical Critical Methods™, it is easy to demonstrate this beyond a shadow of a doubt. 4 main proofs can be introduced for this: anachronisms in the text, contradictions, linguistics, and questions of narrative flow. What I hope to achieve here is to show that not only did J. K. Rowling not write Harry Potter and that there must have been more than one author, but also that I know with total absolute certainty who did it. To deny this would be to go against the Scholarly Consensus of Very Serious Unbiased and Super Smart People™. (thicc right?)

In all seriousness: As I have not read Harry Potter in years and don't intend on doing so ever again, I must give great thanks to Harry Potter Wikia for having all of this information for people to use. I hope they do not mind it being used to mock some Biblical 'scholars.' (This is not to dismiss all supporters of historical critical methods, the documentary hypothesis, or anything like that. There are certainly good arguments for these views, and plenty of people like Richard Elliot Friedman among others are worthy of consideration for their opinions. The main problem here is the absolute certainty that they claim, along with a lack of charity when coming to the text) 

Anachronisms:

"The beginning of the story takes place on a "dull, grey Tuesday." But in 1981, 31 October was on a Saturday."

It seems unlikely that an author who had been alive in the 1980s could get this wrong. One would clearly know or at least check when it was written. It is therefore obvious that the author must have been later, not knowing this sort of thing. We must therefore assume that the author was born post 1981.

"The trip to the zoo is said to take place on a Saturday, but Dudley's eleventh birthday (23 June, 1991) was actually on a Sunday."

We see here too, another anachronism, this time, it's in 1991. Because such an error for a contemporary is absolutely impossible, we must say that the text must have been written by somebody not born before 1991.

The author seems to put much emphasis on England, while Rowling spent much of her time in Edinburg, Scotland. How could it be then, that she wrote it? The simplest answer is that the author was not Rowling, but somebody living in a different land, born much later than the 1960s. As such, despite the fact that there are attributions for the text even in the autographs, we must conclude that they are wrong. The author is hereby anonymous.

Contradictions: 

"On Harry's Hogwarts list of school supplies, "1 Wand" is listed twice, as both the first and last item on the list. This mistake was fixed in later editions of the book. The list of school supplies also doesn't include potion ingredients, although Harry later buys them. In later editions of the book this has been corrected."

Here we see a clear contradiction. If only one person had written Harry Potter, why would there be contradictions? (no, it's not possible that an explanation exists as to why the author intended this, or that people have sloppy writing. This is a clear mistake, any attempt at harmonization is a failure to use Critical Methods™ and it is essentially rank FUNDAMENTALISM)

"Harry buys the book One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi, but later, he looks up dittany in "One Hundred Magical Herbs and Fungi". This error was, however, amended in later editions."

Again, no single author could make a mistake, so obviously it's more than one writer.

"During the Hallowe'en feast, when the troll is let in, Professor Dumbledore sends the students to their dormitories. But the troll is said to be in the dungeons, and that is also where the Slytherin dormitories are, meaning that Dumbledore has put them directly in harm's way by sending them there. The logical move would be for every student to stay in the Great Hall, do a roll call, and send teachers to go and look for missing students."

At this point, anybody who thinks that J.K. Rowling even had a vague hand in writing Harry Potter is drinking fundamentalist Kool Aid, no serious scholar would question the anonymity of Harry Potter.

Linguistics:

Here, it's difficult. Do I want to utterly disregard linguistic studies and posit an absurdly late date that would be impossible, or do I want to point to the language and show when the text was written (not just edited to be up to date)? In both cases I can annoy those FUNDAMENTALISTS. Hell, why not do both? (For the text to Harry Potter, here is the standard scholarly edition)

"Mr. Dursley always sat with his back to the window in his office on the ninth floor. If he hadn't, he might have found it harder to concentrate on drills that morning. He didn't see the owls swoop ing past in broad daylight, though people down in the street did; they pointed and gazed open- mouthed as owl after owl sped overhead. Most of them had never seen an owl even at nighttime. Mr. Dursley, however, had a perfectly normal, owl-free morning. He yelled at five different people. He made several important telephone calls and shouted a bit more. He was in a very good mood until lunchtime, when he thought he'd stretch his legs and walk across the road to buy himself a bun from the bakery."

Looking through this, at first it would seem like this is ordinary English of the late 20th Century. Instead though, we see the word "hadn't," which according to all of our extant manuscripts of late 20th Century writing was never used. Before the 21st Century, contractions were rarely if ever use, especially for written English. (never mind the fact that we don't have all or even much of the writing of the time) Clearly this was written in the 21st Century then, not in the 20th as one could have supposed earlier.

For clear linguistic differences that demonstrate multiple authorship, I could just point this out and be done:

"Dumbledore told her it was true. Dumbledore, however, was choosing another lemon drop and did not answer."

Here, one must notice the phrasing "did not," while in another section of the text the author(s) says "didn't":

"They were the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strange or mysterious, because they just didn't hold with such nonsense."

This is clear use of multiple sources.


Narrative Flow:

Now, we have two starting points to show that there were more than one author: first, we have clear contradictions, and second, we have changes in the use of language. Now, if there was more than one author, it clear that they created different sources and used a patchwork. (again, denying this would be rank FUNDAMENTALISM)

If we take this part of the text, something very interesting becomes clear:

"A man appeared on the corner the cat had been watching, appeared so suddenly and silently you'd have thought he'd just popped out of the ground. The cat's tail twitched and its eyes narrowed.
Nothing like this man had ever been seen on Privet Drive. He was tall, thin, and very old, judging by the silver of his hair and beard, which were both long enough to tuck into his belt. He was wearing long robes, a purple cloak that swept the ground, and high-heeled, buckled boots. His blue eyes were light, bright, and sparkling behind half-moon spectacles and his nose was very long and crooked, as though it had been broken at least twice. This man's name was Albus Dumbledore.
Albus Dumbledore didn't seem to realize that he had just arrived in a street where everything from his name to his boots was unwelcome. He was busy rummaging in his cloak, looking for something. But he did seem to realize he was being watched, because he looked up suddenly at the cat, which was still staring at him from the other end of the street. For some reason, the sight of the cat seemed to amuse him. He chuckled and muttered, "I should have known.""

The narrative flow seems normal enough, is this not true? Indeed, however, it is clear that more than one source was used. How do we know this? If we were to move sections around, we could still find that the text is coherent:

"A man appeared on the corner the cat had been watching, appeared so suddenly and silently you'd have thought he'd just popped out of the ground. The cat's tail twitched and its eyes narrowed.Albus Dumbledore didn't seem to realize that he had just arrived in a street where everything from his name to his boots was unwelcome. He was busy rummaging in his cloak, looking for something. But he did seem to realize he was being watched, because he looked up suddenly at the cat, which was still staring at him from the other end of the street. For some reason, the sight of the cat seemed to amuse him. He chuckled and muttered, "I should have known." 

Here, the astute reader will see that even if we remove parts of the text, it remains coherent. If this is the case, it's very clear that there was more than one author. 

(This is not meant to be serious, but a joke about critical biblical scholarship, hopefully that is obvious. Further, it's not meant to suggest that there are no good biblical scholars, or that it's not an interesting field, but there is a bit of hubris in the field, and often they make unwarranted leaps of logic)

National 'Catholic' 'Reporter' - Why Even Bother?

Few names are as misleading as that of the NCR, or 'National' 'Catholic' Reporter. They aren't nationally famous, so they shouldn't be called National, and they reject Church teaching on nearly everything, so they should much less be called Catholic. This article here is a great example. It's obviously old news, 10 years old in fact, and it shouldn't be shocking, but as a convert, this type of full blown apostasy really still is. The thing that keeps coming to my mind is, "why even bother?"

It was written in relation to Pope (sadly emiritus) Benedict XVI's book on the life of Christ. Here is a small taste of their article:

"A leading New Testament scholar, and former Catholic priest, has criticized Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 book on the Gospels, Jesus of Nazareth, saying that its insistence on identifying the historical Jesus with the Christ of traditional Christian faith has “turned back the clock” on modern scholarship.
The comments from Geza Vermes, author of the acclaimed book Jesus the Jew and a longtime professor at Oxford, came during a summit of leading Western intellectuals May 16-17 in Lugano, Switzerland, devoted to the theme of “truth.” The gathering was sponsored by the Balzan Foundation, which awards the Swiss-Italian equivalent of the Nobel Prize.
Vermes spoke as part of a panel on religious approaches to truth that also included Swiss Cardinal Georges Cottier, former theologian of the Papal Household under Pope John Paul II.
Vermes devoted his presentation to arguing that on the basis of the New Testament, the image of Jesus that emerges is that of a charismatic, wonder-working Jewish holy man, and thus not the divine Son of God claimed by later Christian tradition."

If this were not a newspaper claiming to be Catholic, this wouldn't be a problem. They're reporting the words of a former Catholic priest who is also a notable scholar. What's nitneresting though is that they don't try to present the opposing view. Instead they interview Vermes, the scholar who they talk about. What's amazing here is that they don't even mention somebody like N.T. Wright, Michael Licona, Craig Blomberg, Richard Bauckham, or any other scholar of the New Testament who would say that the Christ of faith was a real flesh and blood person, not a theological construct.

The trouble here, as with the rest of modernist Catholic approaches to biblical studies, is that if one takes only the writings of secular scholars without the light of faith, one will be pushed into a sea of doubts. A layperson finding this article who does not have enough time to read other scholars will be shocked and might have their worldview rocked quite a bit without good reason.

It's very confusing to me why somebody would not believe in the Christ of the gospels yet use the Catholic label at all. More importantly, if the claims that Christ made for Himself were false, there would simply be no hope for anything. There would be no future redemption, no justice, nothing, just a world of blind indifference. Those who try to create a historical Jesus outside of what we see in the Gospels, essentially wish to rob the world of its only chance for any meaning or future.

With Geza Vermes it's especially funny, seeing as he converted from the Catholic Church to Judaism, and lo and behold, the historical Jesus was not the Christ us Christians believe in, but a Jewish Holy Man. Likewise, in the 19th Century, when German thinkers sought to find their 'historical Jesus,' He turned out to be a German Hegelian of some kind. When people tried another quest in the 20th Century, especially in the 1970s and 80s, Christ was made to look like a social revolutionary. Is this a coincidence? It doesn't seem so.

But if the NcR is willing to buy into the 'historical Jesus,' why do they bother calling themselves Catholic? Why not be National Agnostic Atheist Reporter? Why not National Humanist Reporter? I guess they think that liking the guitar music at Mass counts as being Catholic. Maybe this is a misreading of the article, but it does strike me as strange that they didn't even give the counterarguments that exist.

"The Absurdity of Life Without God"

This video is one of the better ones I've seen of William Lane Craig. (it is very blurry sadly) It is interesting to compare with the beginning of St. Augustine's Confessions:

"“Great art thou, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is thy power, and infinite is thy wisdom.” And man desires to praise thee, for he is a part of thy creation; he bears his mortality about with him and carries the evidence of his sin and the proof that thou dost resist the proud. Still he desires to praise thee, this man who is only a small part of thy creation. Thou hast prompted him, that he should delight to praise thee, for thou hast made us for thyself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee." (Book 1 Chapter 1) 

Dr. Craig is speaking of the utter meaningless of life without God, while St. Augustine is going further: our essence and end goal is His worship. The two combined do not point to God's existence, but they do raise an interesting question; is it not utterly absurd that we are designed to want something as our main good that we cannot in principle have? While Aristotle called man a rational animal, we could also think of humans as religious animals. Virtually all cultures ever have had religions, no matter how primitive or developed. It would be hard to deny that a sensus divinatis exists in man.

This is why St. Paul says that God is written on men's hearts, and that if we reject it, it we have no excuses:

"Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. (Romans 1:19-25, DRB)

At some point I will try to give some of Aquinas' conclusions on predestination as would be found in the Summa Theologiae and Reginald Garrigou Lagrange's Predestination.

The 'Catholic' Study Bible

During RCIA, I made the awful decisision to get the 'Catholic' Study Bible. It was published by Oxford, endorsed by the USCCB, and given both a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur, so I in a much less naive and cynical mindset as relates to the Church, thought it would be good. The fact that the USCCB would fall to the level of having this book published is quite shocking. If they were trying to pastor their flocks, they would have asked Oxford not to put the word 'Catholic' in the title, not given it approval.

If one were to read this study Bible without either a strong faith or having spent time reading more Christian commentaries, one would quickly begin to experience doubts. Here I will try to give some examples of the glaring problems, though I hope to be forgiven for not providing exact citations from it. I do not have it on hand, but much of what I say may be readily confirmed in the Amazon preview.

To start, the book is clearly taking the minimalist position. They argue basically for what Israel Finkelstein would suggest, that Moses and the Patriarchs were mythical, and that Israel arose simply out of the native Canaanite population.

Had we lived in a time where there was no good conservative scholarship, this would be excusable. We do not live in such a time, however. James Hoffmeier, Kenneth Kitchen, Iain Provan, etc. are all perfectly good scholars working in a conservative framework. This is also not to mention Richard Elliot Friedman, who is by no means an evangelical, but who recently wrote an excellent book defending at least a small-scale Exodus. It's not difficult to find defenses of the Old Testament, and for the USCCB to endorse a book that basically drinks the Critical Scholarship Kool-Aid is unfortunate to say the least.



Their work on the New Testament is not much better. They do not argue positively for the apostolic authorship of the Gospels, while plenty of arguments for this exist. To give them credit, they seem to avoid challenging biblical inerrancy directly, instead speaking of any issue they would take as related to 'genre.'

It's sad that the American bishops would be endorsing this type of book while evangelicals are doing so much good work to defend the Bible. It reminds one of the beginning of the book of Revelation where the candlesticks of the unfaithful Churches are to be extinguished. Instead of teaching sound Christian ideas, they are willing to teach the prestigious critical opinions of liberal Protestant scholars.

From Revelation:

"Write down thy vision of what now is, and what must befall hereafter. As for the meaning of the seven stars which thou hast seen in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches thou knowest, and the candlesticks, seven in number, are the seven churches. To the angel of the church at Ephesus write thus: A message to thee from him who bears the seven stars in his right hand, and walks amidst the seven golden candlesticks: I know of all thy doings, all thy toil and endurance; how little patience thou hast with wickedness, how thou hast made trial of such as usurp the name of apostle, and found them false. Yes, thou endurest, and all thou hast borne for the love of my name has not made thee despair. Yet there is one charge I make against thee; of losing the charity that was thine at first. Remember the height from which thou hast fallen, and repent, and go back to the old ways; or else I will come to visit thee, and, when I find thee still unrepentant, will remove thy candlestick from its place." (From the Book of the Apocalypse, ending of Chapter 1, beginning of Chapter 2.)

If we look at the time before the Second Vatican Council, American Catholicism was much stronger and a power to be reckoned with, now it has fallen into weakness. If we look at the evangelical movement, they are doing very well. It is not therefore the case that Catholicism is on the decline because the society around it has lost any reason to be Christian, but that those who are seeking an authentic faith are often not finding it there.

Genesis 37:25, anachronism? Does this show a late dating?

This subject has probably been beaten to death, and not much is in need of being said after Kenneth Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament. At the same time, it is a topic that is interesting on its own I would suggest, and it is worthwhile to give examples of the Scriptures being vindicated, especially in these times. Further, the papers listed below are very current. 

Genesis 37:25: And they sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt. (King James Version)

In The Bible Unearthed, Israel Finkelstein says that Genesis 37:25 presents us with an anachronism, namely the use of camels as pack animals. He says that this paired with the mention of spices, balm, and myrrh, which were common products of the 8th and 7th Century BC era Assyrian Empire, points to a late dating of the text. (page 37) 

Camels: He argues that archeological evidence proves that they were not used as pack animals prior to the late second millennium. In this view, they would also not have been commonly used until ‘well after 1000 BC.’ This already is not pointing to an anachronism per se, but instead just something unlikely. The Patriarchs were meant to be quite wealthy, and it would not be inconceivable that they would have made use of an expensive and rare new means of transport. It is not as if we're talking about having a flintlock musket in ancient Rome, but at worst, something like a musket a few year after its invention. 

So, even if we grant the datings he gives in the text, there isn't a real challenge to the reliability of the text, much less to inerrancy. (It could be that a text is not to be seen at face value as historically reliable, but is inerrant. In such a situation it would be describing solely highly unlikely events that are not absolutely ruled, all that happen to be true. One would not be justified in trusting it, but it would still be stating facts) On the other hand, it is relatively easy to vindicate the book of Genesis here. 

Some articles on the subject may first be consulted:

Rosen and Saidel, 2010

Sala, 2017

Horowitz, 2014

In all three it is shown that it would have been within the realm of possibility that Abraham and the other Patriarchs would have had access to camels. Further than that, Sala and Horowitz give reason to suggest that it would not have been improbable:

“By far the earliest document of the use of a dromedary as pack animal is the limestone vessel shaped as a lying camel carrying a generic burden, dated at the First Dynasty (3050-2890 BC), already quoted above (par. 1.1). Its significance is debatable because found in a ritual funerary context, but its date matches the one of the earliest terracotta figurines of harnessed Bactrian camels found in Turkmenistan. During the II millennium BC, when overland trade routes became relatively safe compared to the more dangerous sea navigation, domesticated dromedaries were associated with the emergence of the "incense route" along the western edge of Arabia, connecting the Sabaean coast with Egypt and Near East.” (Sala, 2017)

He later says that the use of the camel in the Genesis account is not yet supported by archeological evidence, but it is reasonable to point out that Abraham and the other Patriarchs did not originate in Israel, but instead in lands where they did already exist. Camels in Canaan are not proven at this time, but Abraham did not begin his life there, and as a constant traveller, he would have had access to lots of different items from around the region. There is an interesting mention of an 'incense route' in the article, which could further confirm the idea that the products that are mentioned would not point to the late date. 

This is link below Christian site, meaning that some may not find it to be a compelling source, but it is also of interest: http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2014/02/17/The-Date-of-Camel-Domestication-in-the-Ancient-Near-East.aspx 

I don't think I could do any justice to the question of the dating of the Pentateuch here, and it is not something I have done substantial research on. Here I am simply trying to give arguments against supposed errors or anachronisms in the Scriptures.