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.