God did NOT command the early Hebrews to kill women and children in warfare

[Steve_O_Brien]

In the EWTN link to Father William G. Most’s Scripture course (thanks for both of the Most links, Dave!), Father writes the following:

“As to the deaths of children: life is a moment to moment gift from God. If He just stops giving, or uses a human instrument to end it, there is nothing wrong.”

With great respect for Father Most, I’d like to observe that there’s a tremendous, morally critical difference between God’s *allowing * someone to kill a child, and God’s *commanding * someone to kill a child. *Every * murder is allowed by God’s permissive will, and, in that sense, every murderer is a “human instrument” of the divine will. Nonetheless, no murder is commanded by God, because no sin can be commanded by God.

Paradoxically, although he mistakenly believes that the *herem * was God’s command, Father Most elucidates the orthodox principles that make it possible to deny such a command without denying Scriptural inerrancy (as I indicated in post #72). We should focus on those principles, rather than Father Most’s opinion concerning the herem.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

On March 18, 1994, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued a document entitled “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.” This document contains a section that is relevant to this thread:

***"3. Exegesis and Moral Theology

"Similar observations can be made regarding the relationship between exegesis and moral theology. The Bible closely links many instructions about proper conduct – commandments, prohibitions, legal prescriptions, prophetic exhortations and accusations, counsels of wisdom, and so forth – to the stories concerning the history of salvation. One of the tasks of exegesis consists in preparing the way for the work of moralists by assessing the significance of this wealth of material.

"This task is not simple, for often the biblical texts are not concerned to distinguish universal moral principles from particular prescriptions of ritual purity and legal ordinances. All is mixed together. On the other hand, the Bible reflects a considerable moral development, which finds its completion in the New Testament. It is not sufficient therefore that the Old Testament should indicate a certain moral position (e.g. the practice of slavery or of divorce, or that of extermination in the case of war) for this position to continue to have validity. One has to undertake a process of discernment. This will review the issue in the light of the progress in moral understanding and sensitivity that has occurred over the years.

"The writings of the Old Testament contain certain ‘imperfect and provisional’ elements (‘Dei Verbum,’ 15), which the divine pedagogy could not eliminate right away. The New Testament itself is not easy to interpret in the area of morality, for it often makes use of imagery, frequently in a way that is paradoxical or even provocative; moreover, in the New Testament area the relationship between Christians and the Jewish Law is the subject of sharp controversy.

“Moral theologians therefore have a right to put to exegetes many questions which will stimulate exegetical research. In many cases the response may be that no biblical text explicitly addresses the problem proposed. But even when such is the case, the witness of the Bible, taken within the framework of the forceful dynamic that governs it as a whole, will certainly indicate a fruitful direction to follow. On the most important points the moral principles of the Decalogue remain basic. The Old Testament already contains the principles and the values which require conduct in full conformity with the dignity of the human person, created ‘in the image of God’ (Gn. 1:27). Through the revelation of God’s love that comes in Christ, the New Testament sheds the fullest light upon these principles and values.” ** *

The entire document can be found at this link:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=561

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[knute]

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is no longer an official organ of the Church. It is simply a group of scholars discussing Biblical issues. The fact that “progressive” Raymond Brown was seated on the commission tells you all you need to know about it.

 

[John_19_59]

I have been been troubled over many years with trying to reconcile God in the OT with God in the NT and God’s ways in general.

I saw this earlier in the the thread and I would like to comment/question.

“And please don’t say that it’s impossible for Samuel or another true prophet to misunderstand God’s will on occasion. There’s no reason to deny this possibility.”

If God speaks to a Prophet and the Prophet misunderstands, why doesn’t God make him/her understand or at least point out he’s wrong and give him the message again in a form he will understand?

If God wants to speak to people, the masses, why does he do it through Prophets? Why not just speak to us? I look down the centuries and see history littered with “Prophets” giving false contradictory messages. It would be so much easier if we were told directly, then there would be no understandable doubt about the person relaying the message.

Does God not understand sceptics and the reasons they are sceptical. There are millions of people out there selling religious “snake-oil”.

I am a Catholic who attends mass, DOES believe in God, and that God is love, but just is completely puzzled by the whole thing.

Having come to belief in God from a sceptical point of view I do understand people who have doubts when a “Prophet” tells them anything they can’t prove.

How did a sceptic come to believe in God? Well mostly because 20 years ago someone gave me the Francis Johnson book about Fatima and that was just what I needed. It was like St Thomas being shown the holes in the hands.

But why doesn’t God do this on a larger scale? He can if he wants! If it’s so important that people love Him then why not tell people in a way that doesn’t raise suspicions about who is telling them - “Honest it’s true, God told me”.

I really don’t understand.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

knute:

The Pontifical Biblical Commission is no longer an official organ of the Church. It is simply a group of scholars discussing Biblical issues. The fact that “progressive” Raymond Brown was seated on the commission tells you all you need to know about it.

No. Pope Paul VI’s appointment of Father Raymond E. Brown to the Pontifical Biblical Commission does not “tell us all we need to know about it.” After all, Father Brown was not the only member of the commission, nor was he wrong about everything. No Biblical scholar is wrong about everything.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document entitled “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” was commended by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope’s official watchdog for orthodoxy. (Please click the link.) This fact does not make the document an *ex cathedra * pronouncement, but it does mean that Catholics who study the Bible seriously should also study this document.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

John_19_59:

I have been been troubled over many years with trying to reconcile God in the OT with God in the NT and God’s ways in general.

I saw this earlier in the the thread and I would like to comment/question.

“And please don’t say that it’s impossible for Samuel or another true prophet to misunderstand God’s will on occasion. There’s no reason to deny this possibility.”

If God speaks to a Prophet and the Prophet misunderstands, why doesn’t God make him/her understand or at least point out he’s wrong and give him the message again in a form he will understand?

I suggest that we can obtain some light on this question by considering the answer that Our Lord gave to the Pharisees who objected to his rejection of divorce: “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (*Mt * 19:8; 1986 NAB).

It’s interesting that the 1994 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Scriptural interpretation links divorce and extermination warfare:

***“It is not sufficient therefore that the Old Testament should indicate a certain moral position (e.g. the practice of slavery or of divorce, or that of extermination in the case of war) for this position to continue to have validity.” ** *

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

there’s a tremendous, morally critical difference between God’s *allowing *someone to kill a child, and God’s *commanding *someone to kill a child.

How? Whether God acts directly to implement his will, or acts within his creation (e.g. angels, humans), it is still God acting to implement his will. St. Michael slaying God’s enemies is not morally different than God slaying them directly.

no murder is commanded by God, because no sin can be commanded by God.

The killing of the enemies of God, like the Amalekites was no more and act of “murder” than the Levite priests who killed idolatrous Israelites. Murder is not the same as just punishment for wickedness, divinely commanded.

although he mistakenly believes that the *herem *was God’s command …

Fr. Most makes no mistake by agreeing with Catholic teaching as also made clear by Doctors of the Church such as St. Thomas Aquinas. I submit that it is your poor attempt at exegesis that is the mistake.

… Father Most elucidates the orthodox principles that make it possible to deny such a command without denying Scriptural inerrancy

I disagree. The Chapter you quote form is called “Variant Traditions.” catholicculture.org/docs/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=216&ChapNum=16

Anyone who has read Fr. Most in context knows precisely what he elucidates. Fr. Most is speaking of those instances in Scripture when the sacred author offers variant traditions. The example he gives is that of Saul meeting David. In his view, there are two variant accounts. Fr. Most gives the orthodox principle one ought to follow: “The key to the problem is to ask, *What did the inspired writer mean to assert?” *When the sacred author offers two inspired accounts that seem to be in conflict with each other, the sacred author may be asserting: “I found these two versions. I do not know which is correct. But here they are.” What the sacred author intends to assert is not therefore not erroneous, as he does not intend to assert one or the other as factually true, strictly so-called.

The question one ought regarding your thesis is this: Does the sacred author of 1 Sam give two inspired accounts that seem to be in conflict with each other regarding whether or not God commanded the Amalekites to be under herem? Isn’t it true that the sacred author of 1 Sam only asserts one single tradition, namely, that God did indeed command that the Amalekites were under divine *herem? *If the the sacred author did give **two inspired accounts that seem to be in conflict with each other then **you might be applying the same orthodox principles that Fr. Most elucidates. As it is, in multiple places within Sacred Scripture within the Books of Samuel and among other books of Sacred Scripture, there’s but one inspired tradition given, and that is this: God commanded that the Amalekites were under *herem. *No other divine tradition is asserted by any other sacred author of Scripture, right?

Your attempt to enlist Fr. Most to your aid is not convincing.

 

[RBushlow]

. . . . Deut 20, Josh 6 and 8, and 1 Sam 15. . . .I thus agree with the New American Bible annotator . . . . and Jesuit scholar John L. McKenzie in his Dictionary of the Bible . . . . .

I am not familiar with these sources. Could you please quote the New American Bible annotator and John L. McKenzie here so we can understand. Thank you.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

***It is not sufficient therefore that the Old Testament should indicate a certain moral position (e.g. the practice of slavery or of divorce, or that of extermination in the case of war) for this position to continue to have validity. ***
**

I agree. Yet the passage above presumes that certain moral positions, to include extermination warfare, **were valid **in the Old Testament, otherwise they would not have stated that they do not “continue to have validity” in the NT Church.

Nobody here is stating that divorce, slavery, or extermination warfare it still licit according to the Catholic Church. However, according to the Catholic Church, all of these moral principles were valid in the Old Covenant when divinely approved and commanded.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

RBushlow:

I am not familiar with these sources. Could you please quote the New American Bible annotator and John L. McKenzie here so we can understand.

Please see post #66.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Steve, I haven’t read the thread as your agenda is clear with the subject title.

But I think you need to reread the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 13

12 And all Israel, hearing of it, shall fear and never again do such evil as this in your midst. 13 "If, in any of the cities which the LORD, your God, gives you to dwell in, you hear it said 14 that certain scoundrels have sprung up among you and have led astray the inhabitants of their city to serve other gods whom you have not known, 15 you must inquire carefully into the matter and investigate it thoroughly. If you find that it is true and an established fact that this abomination has been committed in your midst, 16 you shall put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, dooming the city and all life that is in it, even its cattle, to the sword.
Joshua 10

28 Makkedah, too, Joshua captured and put to the sword at that time. He fulfilled the doom on the city, on its king, and on every person in it, leaving no survivors. Thus he did to the king of Makkedah what he had done to the king of Jericho. 29 Joshua then passed on with all Israel from Makkedah to Libnah, which he attacked. 30 Libnah also, with its king, the LORD delivered into the power of Israel. He put it to the sword with every person there, leaving no survivors. Thus he did to its king what he had done to the king of Jericho. 31 Joshua next passed on with all Israel from Libnah to Lachish, where they set up a camp during the attack. 32 The LORD delivered Lachish into the power of Israel, so that on the second day Joshua captured it and put it to the sword with every person in it, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 At that time Horam, king of Gezer, came up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his people, leaving him no survivors. 34 From Lachish, Joshua passed on with all Israel to Eglon; encamping near it, they attacked it 35 and captured it the same day, putting it to the sword. He fulfilled the doom that day on every person in it, just as he had done at Lachish. 36 From Eglon, Joshua went up with all Israel to Hebron, which they attacked 37 and captured. They put it to the sword with its king, all its towns, and every person there, leaving no survivors, just as Joshua had done to Eglon. He fulfilled the doom on it and on every person there. 38 Then Joshua and all Israel turned back to Debir and attacked it, 39 capturing it with its king and all its towns. They put them to the sword and fulfilled the doom on every person there, leaving no survivors. Thus was done to Debir and its king what had been done to Hebron, as well as to Libnah and its king. 40 Joshua conquered the entire country; the mountain regions, the Negeb, the foothills, and the mountain slopes, with all their kings. He left no survivors, but fulfilled the doom on all who lived there, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

knute,

I believe you misunderstand the authority of Pontifical commissions.

Observe,

Catholic Encyclopedia - "The Biblical Commission"
newadvent.org/cathen/02557a.htm

Authority of its Decisions
The Commission though formed like a Congregation is not a Congregation but seemingly of lower rank. Its decisions are approved by the pope and published by his command. Such approval, when given in formâ communi, does not change the nature of the decisions as emanating from a Congregation or Commission, nor does it make them specifically pontifical acts; much less does it imply an exercise of the pope’s personal prerogative of infallibility. Hence they are not infallible or unchangeable, though they must be received with obedience and interior assent, by which we judge that the doctrine proposed is safe and to be accepted because of the authority by which it is presented. These decisions are not the opinions of a private assembly, but an official directive norm; to question them publicy would be lacking in respect and obedience to legitimate authority.

 

[Strider]

Deut 32:39 “‘See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me.
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
and there is none that can deliver out of my hand…’”

Moses is reading the words of God to the Istaelites. God is sounding angry (I say"sounding because I don’t think God really gets angry, imo). The point is that God causes Israelites to die and he causes the Israelites to cause others to die. “I kill and I make alive.”
All this had to be done to teach the Israelites God’s love, yes, I said LOVE for them and so that they could reach the “Fulness of time,” for the coming of Christ. It was and ancient and brutal time.
I can only repeat what I said an earlier post. The Bible is inerrant. If it is not, then Christianity falls.
Repeating myself again, I can’t think like God. I am merely one of his least creations. I can only believe and trust that everything he does is for the best.
God bless

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

itsjustdave1988:

The question one ought to pose regarding your thesis is this: Does the sacred author of 1 Sam give two inspired accounts that seem to be in conflict with each other regarding whether or not God commanded the Amalekites to be under herem? Isn’t it true that the sacred author of 1 Sam only asserts one single tradition, namely, that God did indeed command that the Amalekites were under divine *herem? *If the sacred author did give two inspired accounts that seem to be in conflict with each other, then you might be applying the same orthodox principles that Fr. Most elucidates. As it is, in multiple places within Sacred Scripture (within the Books of Samuel and among other books of Sacred Scripture), there’s but one inspired tradition given, and that is this: God commanded that the Amalekites were under *herem. *No other divine tradition is asserted by any other sacred author of Scripture, right?

Not right. Father Most says this:

**“There are other examples of variant traditions in the Old Testament than can be explained in the same way. A probable example is the narrative of Saul’s rejection by God as king of the Hebrews so that his dynasty would go no further. One of these examples, in 1 Samuel 13:1-14, tells how Saul did not wait for Samuel but offered sacrifice himself before battle. The other, in 15:1-31, tells how Saul in fighting against Agag, king of Amalek, doomed only the worthless. Samuel told him, ‘Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams’ (15:22). It is just possible that the events in these two passages could both have happened” (Free from All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars, page 90).

But it is *also * “just possible” that these variant traditions concerning the reason for God’s rejection of Saul, although they are not clearly contradictory as in the case of the accounts of David’s first meeting with Saul, represent sources whose accuracy the inspired author could not determine. If that is so, then one can apply to Saul’s rejection the same principle that Father Most applies to David’s first meeting with Saul:

**"If the inspired writer does give us both versions–as he has–what does he assert? Clearly both versions cannot be correct. In giving the two versions, the inspired writer is, in effect, telling us: ‘I found these two versions. I do not know which is correct. But here they are.’ So there is no error at all" (Ibid., page 88).

The bottom line would be that the author of *1 Samuel * is *not * asserting and affirming the historical accuracy of his chapter 15, but merely reporting this variant account of the reason for Saul’s rejection. In that case, there would be no reason for citing *1 Sam * 15:1-3 to defend the contention that God actually commanded the herem.

It is true that Father Most did not draw this conclusion himself; nonetheless, he defended the orthodoxy of a principle that can lead to this conclusion.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

itsjustdave1988:

I agree. Yet the passage above presumes that certain moral positions, to include extermination warfare, **were valid **in the Old Testament, otherwise they would not have stated that they do not “continue to have validity” in the NT Church.

Nobody here is stating that divorce, slavery, or extermination warfare it still licit according to the Catholic Church. However, according to the Catholic Church, all of these moral principles were valid in the Old Covenant when divinely approved and commanded.

I suggest that the context of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s comment on slavery, divorce, and extermination warfare is not favorable to the view that the Commission believes that these evils were truly “valid” in Old Testament times:

***“This task is not simple, for often the biblical texts are not concerned to distinguish universal moral principles from particular prescriptions of ritual purity and legal ordinances. All is mixed together. On the other hand, the Bible reflects a considerable moral development, which finds its completion in the New Testament. It is not sufficient therefore that the Old Testament should indicate a certain moral position (e.g. the practice of slavery or of divorce, or that of extermination in the case of war) for this position to continue to have validity. One has to undertake a process of discernment. This will review the issue in the light of the progress in moral understanding and sensitivity that has occurred over the years.” ** *

To take only the case of divorce: when Our Lord informs the Pharisees that divorce is wrong, he tells them that it was **Moses * * who permitted them to divorce their wives (*Mt * 19:8). Please note that he does not say that it was *God * who commanded or permitted them to do so.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

ByzCath:

Steve, I haven’t read the thread as your agenda is clear with the subject title.

But I think you need to reread the Old Testament.

Deuteronomy 13

12 And all Israel, hearing of it, shall fear and never again do such evil as this in your midst. 13 "If, in any of the cities which the LORD, your God, gives you to dwell in, you hear it said 14 that certain scoundrels have sprung up among you and have led astray the inhabitants of their city to serve other gods whom you have not known, 15 you must inquire carefully into the matter and investigate it thoroughly. If you find that it is true and an established fact that this abomination has been committed in your midst, 16 you shall put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, dooming the city and all life that is in it, even its cattle, to the sword.
Joshua 10

28 Makkedah, too, Joshua captured and put to the sword at that time. He fulfilled the doom on the city, on its king, and on every person in it, leaving no survivors. Thus he did to the king of Makkedah what he had done to the king of Jericho. 29 Joshua then passed on with all Israel from Makkedah to Libnah, which he attacked. 30 Libnah also, with its king, the LORD delivered into the power of Israel. He put it to the sword with every person there, leaving no survivors. Thus he did to its king what he had done to the king of Jericho. 31 Joshua next passed on with all Israel from Libnah to Lachish, where they set up a camp during the attack. 32 The LORD delivered Lachish into the power of Israel, so that on the second day Joshua captured it and put it to the sword with every person in it, just as he had done to Libnah. 33 At that time Horam, king of Gezer, came up to help Lachish, but Joshua defeated him and his people, leaving him no survivors. 34 From Lachish, Joshua passed on with all Israel to Eglon; encamping near it, they attacked it 35 and captured it the same day, putting it to the sword. He fulfilled the doom that day on every person in it, just as he had done at Lachish. 36 From Eglon, Joshua went up with all Israel to Hebron, which they attacked 37 and captured. They put it to the sword with its king, all its towns, and every person there, leaving no survivors, just as Joshua had done to Eglon. He fulfilled the doom on it and on every person there. 38 Then Joshua and all Israel turned back to Debir and attacked it, 39 capturing it with its king and all its towns. They put them to the sword and fulfilled the doom on every person there, leaving no survivors. Thus was done to Debir and its king what had been done to Hebron, as well as to Libnah and its king. 40 Joshua conquered the entire country; the mountain regions, the Negeb, the foothills, and the mountain slopes, with all their kings. He left no survivors, but fulfilled the doom on all who lived there, just as the LORD, the God of Israel, had commanded./QUOTE

ByzCath,

I just don’t have the strength to read all these posts, but am so glad to see yours. I gather that no one else has had the sense to just go to the OT and tell it as it was. There is no getting around these massacres. Was this the original ethnic cleansing or no?

What truly confuses me is that the duplicity of the Patriarchs and their wives is OK as they did not have the Law (or so I’m told). Now, here, are people who did not have the Law either, but we are taught that it was OK to annihilate them, because they broke God’s Law! How’s that?

Sure, they were bad examples and seductions for the Israelites, but neither that excuse nor the other is comprehensible to me.

I accept, but I sure don’t understand.

Peace,

Anna

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Steve O'Brien:

I suggest that we can obtain some light on this question by considering the answer that Our Lord gave to the Pharisees who objected to his rejection of divorce: “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (*Mt *19:8; 1986 NAB).

It’s interesting that the 1994 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on Scriptural interpretation links divorce and extermination warfare:

***“It is not sufficient therefore that the Old Testament should indicate a certain moral position (e.g. the practice of slavery or of divorce, or that of extermination in the case of war) for this position to continue to have validity.” ***

Keep and spread the Faith.

The paragraph says we must not assume these commands *continue *to have validity, but does not explicity call into question their original validity.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

Andreas Hofer:

The paragraph says we must not assume these commands *continue *to have validity, but does not explicity call into question their original validity.

Even if we were to think that the Pontifical Biblical Commission presupposes that slavery, divorce, and extermination warfare were “valid” under the Old Law, we would still have to determine precisely what “valid” means in the commission’s understanding. Is it the validity of something that God commands or approves? Or, on the other hand, is it the validity of something merely tolerated by God’s permissive will–the will whereby God simply refrains from impeding the existence of moral and physical evils (*CCC * 311)?

The eminent theologian Germain Grisez (a staunch defender of the Magisterium in general and *Humanae vitae * in particular) holds the “more likely view that polygamy never was willed by God but only tolerated, as divorce was” (The Way of the Lord Jesus, Volume 2: Living a Christian Life, page 603, footnote 110). He thus declines to regard the “practice of polygamy in the Old Testament as a divine concession no longer available to Christians.”

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve,

*1 Samuel *is *not *asserting and affirming the historical accuracy of his chapter 15, but merely reporting this variant account of the reason for Saul’s rejection. In that case, there would be no reason for citing *1 Sam *15:1-3 to defend the contention that God actually commanded the herem.

I believe you’re misapplying Catholic teaching here.

Here’s what the Pontifical Bible Commission concludes, according to the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia:

On the historical character of certain narratives. It is not lawful to question the historical character of books hitherto regarded as historical, unless in a case where the sense of the Church is not opposed and where, subject to her judgment, it is proved by solid arguments that the sacred writer did not intend to write history (23 June, 1905).

This is in accord with Fr. Brian Harrison’s article, where he states:

The Encyclical Sprititus Praclitus in its Historical Context

by Rev. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., M.A., S.T.D.

rtforum.org/lt/lt60.html

the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s response of 23 June 1905, dealing with “narratives which are historical only in appearance” (EB 161). The Commission decided that as a rule the existence of such genres should not be admitted in Scripture, but it allowed that there might be exceptions, if it could be proved with solid arguments that in particular books or passages "the inspired writer did not intend to write history in the true and proper sense." (footnote 33)

You don’t seem to have given such a proof. Instead, you simply assert that the Pontifical Biblical Commission says that it is possible to consider narratives to be only appearantly historical, so your thesis is therefore orthodox. Yet, that’s not what the Pontifical Biblical Commission taught.

There are many things that *can *be true about Sacred Scripture, but that doesn’t mean that it is orthodox Catholic scholarship that it IS true about Sacred Scripture. For example, despite the creation narratives of Genesis being thought of by orthodox Catholic scholarship as poetic in genre, the historicity of the sin or our first parent and that fact that all humanity came from one set of parents must be affirmed as historic fact of Sacred Scritpure.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Steve,

If you’d like to attempt a proof of your thesis, I suggest you use orthodox Catholic exegetical methods to do so.

According to materials from my post-grad course on Sacred Scripture, Fr. Leonard Obloy writes:

In order to rightly understand the message of the Bible and therfore its inerrant character, one must work at a proper interpreation. This begins with the literal sense, the sense intended by the human author. This is done by means of studying the literary forms found in the Bible. The document Dei Verbum] states, " … truth is set forth and expressed differently" in different ways of writing. One must also take into account the whole of the Scriptures. **And as well the tradition of the Church and the Magisterium **all have to be consulted in the work of interpretation. (Commentary on Dei Verbum, by Rev Leonard Obloy)

Literal sense: You’ve offered no evidence from exegesis that the sacred author did not assert Amalekite herem to be of Divine origin. In fact, the words of Scripture explicity state that it was of Divine origin. There are no variant traditions found within the inspired text concerning this point. The variant tradition mentioned by Fr. Most pertains to the reason Saul was rejected, not the Biblical fact of Divinely commanded Amalekite herem. Yet, as Fr. Most asserts, there’s nothing that prohibits both reasons from being historically true. He’s following the prescriptions of the Pontifical Bible Commission, where you don’t seem to be.

Take into account the whole of Scriptures: This is where your thesis clearly falls apart. The Amalekite herem as well as other *herem *commanded by God is attested to in multiple places of Scripture without any variant tradition which contradict it. For your thesis to be acceptable, many narratives of Scripture have to be proved to be *“narratives which are historical only in appearance.” *You simply skipped the part where the Pontifical Commission insisted that such, “***should not be admitted in Scripture… [unless] it could be proved with solid arguments.”***A clear and solid argument gets very difficult when you have to discount multiple passages that assert the same historical truth as only “appearant” history.

Catholic Tradition and Magisterium. Furthermore, your thesis completely falls apart here. The only evidence from Bishops (Teaching Church) of the Catholic Church offered on this thread that specifically speak to this issue is the evidence I gave from Ven. Newman and St. Thomas Aquinas. If you have evidence from a Bishop of the Catholic Church that speaks directly to the Divine origin or lack thereof for Amalekite herem, please provide it. The NAB commentary is no more magisterial than the Navarre commentary. Priests, no matter how learned and orthodox, are part of the Taught Church, not part of the Teaching Church. The CCC texts you provided don’t pertain to divine *herem, *but instead prohibit the killing of innocent non-combatants in warfare. This is just as valid as prohibiting divorce within the New Covenant, but says nothing of the validity of such precepts within the Old Covenant.