I’m curious when clerics or theologians make authoritative historical arguments what exactly are their credentials to make these historic claims? Perhaps, Fr. Casey has a degree in History; however, by the video, his presentation appears second hand. Fr. Casey even presents the 600,000 men argument against the Exodus narrative, which as someone trained as a historian would be embarrassed to refer.
I’d encourage anyone who comes across videos like this one to ask these questions: What are your credentials? Are you a trained historian? What is your understanding of historicism? If I were to ask Fr. Casey about Exodus, in particular, I’d ask him these questions: “If a Hebrew author wrote down a number in their history, would they understand it literally like modern histories are written or would the author be an expression of the era and culture?” ” For example, when you articulate the literal sense of the author, is this also what is considered to be the common sense of the author of the period? I’d ask this question because from the video it appears that Fr. Casey doesn’t make these distinctions. Some more questions, “Is the Exodus account was written after Babylonian Exile or after? Does the Samaritan Torah indicate the narrative existed prior to the Babylonian Exile? And what would be the fallout of choosing one of the other? Does this challenge the authority of Masoretic text?
On another note, Fr. Casey last week made the argument that tradition like Liturgy isn’t objective, but instead, subjective based on Culture etc.
In that particular video, I did reply to Fr. Casey, you can probably figure out which one is my comment in the video.