Execution

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Let's try a scenerio:
Suppose you have a man who has raped and killed multiple children before being caught and tried. Suppose also that this animal has publicly stated that if given the chance he would gladly rape and kill another child. Now, firstly, why would any rational human being have a problem with removing this man from the face of the earth? Secondly, wouldn't a life sentence with no possibility of parole would be a long term death sentence anyway?

Could you not have thrown in the wanton drowning of cute kittens to make an even stronger case?

The flat out answer from me is that it is wrong for a human to murder another human. And when you have this person -- however awful he is, and whatever heinous crimes he's committed -- completely under you power so that he cannot even defend himself against you strapping him to a board and loading him full of lethal drugs, or shooting him, or electrocuting him, or hanging, or stoning or decapitating him -- then since he is no longer a threat (being so under your power), nothing can turn this into "self defense" or even "societal defense." You are murdering him.

Religiously, Jesus never tried to stop the death sentences of the other two beside him on the crosses.

Religiously, if Jesus was supposed to die on the cross, then there was never any expectation that he should stop the other executions. That would have made it very clear that he had the power to thwart the will of his executioners, and in not doing so, essentially committed suicide.

 

[Vouthon]

I would certainly question in what sense 'life is sacred to God', considering he often goes around in the OT either killing people or ordering others to do so.

I notice you said the OT rather than specifically the NT. Surely not an accidental choice of words.

As its name implies, in Christian understanding the Bible is a work of progressive revelation in which the Holy Spirit gradually leads the inspired Jewish authors towards ever clearer and more exact apprehension of truth, culminating in Jesus, the incarnation of God Himself. The NT supersedes and completes the partial revelation of the OT.

Christians believe the fullness of truth is revealed in the person, teaching, and ministry of Jesus. We look at the entirety of Scripture in light of him. Indeed, according to Pope Benedict, problematic passages in the Old Testament are “valid insofar as they are part of the history leading up to Christ.” The Old Testament’s conception of God and God’s action was imperfect because God was working with an imperfect people to gradually lead them towards perfection in Christ. The provisional imperfection we find in the Old Testament is therefore not God’s in the Christian mindset, but rather due to the fact that he deigned to “condescend” to the human level of comprehension of the authors and their time.

Many of the "violent" images applied to God in the Tanakh (or indeed the Book of Revelation), are readily comprehensible when interpreted according to their appropriate genre. The texts describe an ancient Near Eastern, Semitic people speaking about their national divinity in terms not dissimilar to the surrounding societies, which were often inherently violent cultures. We were taught by the Church Fathers, in the sacred tradition handed down by the Apostles, that God acted according to what we call divine pedagogy or condescension to the ways of man:

"He condescends and accommodates Himself to our weakness, like a schoolmaster talking a ‘little language’ to his children, like a father caring for his own children and adopting their ways” (Fragment on Deuteronomy 1.21).


“[W]e were first taught elementary and easier lessons, suited to our intelligence, while the Dispenser of our lots was ever leading us up, by gradually accustoming us, like eyes brought up in the dark, to the great light of truth” St. Basil (De Spiritu Sancto 14.33).


"...But since that which is by nature finite cannot rise above its prescribed limits, or lay hold of the superior nature of the Most High, on this account He, bringing His power, so full of love for humanity, down to the level of human weakness, so far as it was possible for us to receive it, bestowed on us this helpful gift of grace...and thus in the various manifestations of God to man He both adapts Himself to man and speaks in human language, and assumes wrath, and pity, and such-like emotions, so that through feelings corresponding to our own our infantile life might be led as by hand, and lay hold of the Divine nature by means of the words which His foresight has given.

For that it is irreverent to imagine that God is subject to any passion such as we see in respect to pleasure, or pity, or anger, no one will deny who has thought at all about the truth of things. And yet the Lord is said to take pleasure in His servants, and to be angry with the backsliding people, and, again, to have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and to show compassion— the word teaching us in each of these expressions that God’s providence helps our infirmity by using our own idioms of speech...”

- St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-394) Against Eunomius II

​

Of particular note is how Gregory interprets certain descriptions of God. He does not consider emotions of wrath to be literal. He understands this language to describe God in “our own idioms of speech.” To this end, the Catholic poet Angelus Silesius could write:

"...The vengeful God
of wrath and punishment
is a mere fairytale.
It simply is the Me
that makes me fail.

God stands far above the anger,
rage and indignation
ascribed to Him by primitive imagination..."​

- Angelus Silesius (1624 - 1677), Polish-German Catholic mystic & poet​

But as time goes on, we see more and more the deeper reality of this apparently national deity actually being the supreme, infinitely merciful creator of the cosmos and lord of being, who will be most fully unveiled in the person of Jesus but was also in the Torah, the major prophets such as Isaiah and the wisdom books.

As Pope Benedict XVI noted in his 2010 apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini:


Verbum Domini: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church (30 September 2010) | BENEDICT XVI

The “dark” passages of the Bible
​

In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance.

God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things.

This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic.

Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.

​

Yet even in the earlier portions of the Tanakh, we find the following regarding the sacredness of human life:

1 Chronicles 22:

David said to Solomon: “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the Lord my God. But this word of the Lord came to me: ‘You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name."​

David's shedding of human blood, even in ostensibly just wars, disqualified him from building a Temple to God. It needed to be constructed by his son, a "man of peace".

Moreover, the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom which is included in the Catholic and Orthodox versions of the OT (but not the Jewish or Protestant) has the most profoundly beautiful description of God's infinite compassion for all living beings:

Wisdom 11​

God Is Powerful and Merciful

For it is always in your power to show great strength,
and who can withstand the might of your arm?
Because the whole world before you is like a speck that tips the scales,
and like a drop of morning dew that falls on the ground.
But you are merciful to all, for you can do all things,
and you overlook people's sins, so that they may repent.
For you love all things that exist,
and detest none of the things that you have made,
for you would not have made anything if you had hated it.
How would anything have endured if you had not willed it?
Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved?
You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.
For your immortal spirit is in all things.​

 

[danieldemol]

Execution is punishment for a serious evil deed. A murder or treason to the country...

Imo treason is too vaguely worded a crime to be punishable by death. If the death sentence is for espionage why not call it that instead of treason?

 

[Koldo]

I notice you said the OT rather than specifically the NT. Surely not an accidental choice of words.

As its name implies, in Christian understanding the Bible is a work of progressive revelation in which the Holy Spirit gradually leads the inspired Jewish authors towards ever clearer and more exact apprehension of truth, culminating in Jesus, the incarnation of God Himself. The NT supersedes and completes the partial revelation of the OT.

Christians believe the fullness of truth is revealed in the person, teaching, and ministry of Jesus. We look at the entirety of Scripture in light of him. Indeed, according to Pope Benedict, problematic passages in the Old Testament are “valid insofar as they are part of the history leading up to Christ.” The Old Testament’s conception of God and God’s action was imperfect because God was working with an imperfect people to gradually lead them towards perfection in Christ. The provisional imperfection we find in the Old Testament is therefore not God’s in the Christian mindset, but rather due to the fact that he deigned to “condescend” to the human level of comprehension of the authors and their time.

Many of the "violent" images applied to God in the Tanakh (or indeed the Book of Revelation), are readily comprehensible when interpreted according to their appropriate genre. The texts describe an ancient Near Eastern, Semitic people speaking about their national divinity in terms not dissimilar to the surrounding societies, which were often inherently violent cultures. We were taught by the Church Fathers, in the sacred tradition handed down by the Apostles, that God acted according to what we call divine pedagogy or condescension to the ways of man:

"He condescends and accommodates Himself to our weakness, like a schoolmaster talking a ‘little language’ to his children, like a father caring for his own children and adopting their ways” (Fragment on Deuteronomy 1.21).


“[W]e were first taught elementary and easier lessons, suited to our intelligence, while the Dispenser of our lots was ever leading us up, by gradually accustoming us, like eyes brought up in the dark, to the great light of truth” St. Basil (De Spiritu Sancto 14.33).


"...But since that which is by nature finite cannot rise above its prescribed limits, or lay hold of the superior nature of the Most High, on this account He, bringing His power, so full of love for humanity, down to the level of human weakness, so far as it was possible for us to receive it, bestowed on us this helpful gift of grace...and thus in the various manifestations of God to man He both adapts Himself to man and speaks in human language, and assumes wrath, and pity, and such-like emotions, so that through feelings corresponding to our own our infantile life might be led as by hand, and lay hold of the Divine nature by means of the words which His foresight has given.

For that it is irreverent to imagine that God is subject to any passion such as we see in respect to pleasure, or pity, or anger, no one will deny who has thought at all about the truth of things. And yet the Lord is said to take pleasure in His servants, and to be angry with the backsliding people, and, again, to have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and to show compassion— the word teaching us in each of these expressions that God’s providence helps our infirmity by using our own idioms of speech...”

- St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-394) Against Eunomius II

​

Of particular note is how Gregory interprets certain descriptions of God. He does not consider emotions of wrath to be literal. He understands this language to describe God in “our own idioms of speech.” To this end, the Catholic poet Angelus Silesius could write:

"...The vengeful God
of wrath and punishment
is a mere fairytale.
It simply is the Me
that makes me fail.

God stands far above the anger,
rage and indignation
ascribed to Him by primitive imagination..."​

- Angelus Silesius (1624 - 1677), Polish-German Catholic mystic & poet​

But as time goes on, we see more and more the deeper reality of this apparently national deity actually being the supreme, infinitely merciful creator of the cosmos and lord of being, who will be most fully unveiled in the person of Jesus but was also in the Torah, the major prophets such as Isaiah and the wisdom books.

As Pope Benedict XVI noted in his 2010 apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini:


Verbum Domini: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation on the Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church (30 September 2010) | BENEDICT XVI

The “dark” passages of the Bible
​

In discussing the relationship between the Old and the New Testaments, the Synod also considered those passages in the Bible which, due to the violence and immorality they occasionally contain, prove obscure and difficult. Here it must be remembered first and foremost that biblical revelation is deeply rooted in history. God’s plan is manifested progressively and it is accomplished slowly, in successive stages and despite human resistance.

God chose a people and patiently worked to guide and educate them. Revelation is suited to the cultural and moral level of distant times and thus describes facts and customs, such as cheating and trickery, and acts of violence and massacre, without explicitly denouncing the immorality of such things.

This can be explained by the historical context, yet it can cause the modern reader to be taken aback, especially if he or she fails to take account of the many “dark” deeds carried out down the centuries, and also in our own day. In the Old Testament, the preaching of the prophets vigorously challenged every kind of injustice and violence, whether collective or individual, and thus became God’s way of training his people in preparation for the Gospel. So it would be a mistake to neglect those passages of Scripture that strike us as problematic.

Rather, we should be aware that the correct interpretation of these passages requires a degree of expertise, acquired through a training that interprets the texts in their historical-literary context and within the Christian perspective which has as its ultimate hermeneutical key “the Gospel and the new commandment of Jesus Christ brought about in the paschal mystery”.[140] I encourage scholars and pastors to help all the faithful to approach these passages through an interpretation which enables their meaning to emerge in the light of the mystery of Christ.
​

Yet even in the earlier portions of the Tanakh, we find the following regarding the sacredness of human life:

1 Chronicles 22:

David said to Solomon: “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the Lord my God. But this word of the Lord came to me: ‘You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name."​

David's shedding of human blood, even in ostensibly just wars, disqualified him from building a Temple to God. It needed to be constructed by his son, a "man of peace".

Moreover, the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom which is included in the Catholic and Orthodox versions of the OT (but not the Jewish or Protestant) has the most profoundly beautiful description of God's infinite compassion for all living beings:

Wisdom 11​

God Is Powerful and Merciful

For it is always in your power to show great strength,
and who can withstand the might of your arm?
Because the whole world before you is like a speck that tips the scales,
and like a drop of morning dew that falls on the ground.
But you are merciful to all, for you can do all things,
and you overlook people's sins, so that they may repent.
For you love all things that exist,
and detest none of the things that you have made,
for you would not have made anything if you had hated it.
How would anything have endured if you had not willed it?
Or how would anything not called forth by you have been preserved?
You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living.
For your immortal spirit is in all things.​

This is nothing more and nothing less than interpreting according to convenience.
"Here is how I want God to be. Now how can I interpret the bible to be compatible with it ?"

 

[Vouthon]

This is nothing more and nothing less than interpreting according to convenience.
"Here is how I want God to be. Now how can I interpret the bible to be compatible with it ?"

Or it might simply be a case of you misreading ancient, near east genres by taking their descriptions of God far too literally out-of-context for the period and not discerning the important difference between a belief in God communicating Himself as an incarnation versus mediation through the imperfect minds of prophets/inspired authors, not to mention the reality of progressive revelation? The OT uses imagery of God possessing "hands" and other bodily organs that are clearly figurative aids for human understanding, and that is how the Church since the earliest times has understood it.

I'm a Catholic and I explained to you how we interpret the Bible and have done for nearly 2,000 years, which is not even the sole repository of divine revelation for us (we don't adhere to sola scriptura).

It is not how I want God to be, rather it is how Jesus - whom I believe actually is God in a way no prophet or inspired author was before him - and the magisterium of the Church (which I regard as His authoritative, infallible body on earth) explains God to me.

I'm not a fundamentalist Protestant or an Orthodox Jew, and I'm inclined as a Catholic to embrace the Church's interpretation of scripture over your own - not least since she is the one who determined what is and isn't scripture.

Firstly, for Catholics Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible. The scriptures are the Word of God in a somewhat lesser capacity, as the written and inspired witness to the Word according to a progressive revelation, with the four gospels of the NT having the most seniority as the witness to the life and ministry of Jesus, the Word incarnate.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians have quite a different way of interpreting the Bible, as I've already described (indeed we don't believe in sola scriptura, accounting sacred tradition as equivalent in authority to the scriptures).

The Catholic view was set out in the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, "Dei Verbum" of Vatican II:

Dei verbum

"...since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men...."​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Imo treason is too vaguely worded a crime to be punishable by death. If the death sentence is for espionage why not call it that instead of treason?

Espionage or out-right treachery, like showing the way to the fort. Basically, acting against the interest of one's own country as the ruler of the day sees it.

 

[metis]

I would certainly question in what sense 'life is sacred to God', considering he often goes around in the OT either killing people or ordering others to do so.

I'm not one who believes that, especially since I look at the scriptures, any scriptures, as being largely or entirely of human composition. See my faith statement at the bottom of my posts for clarification.

 

[metis]

Or it might simply be a case of you misreading ancient, near east genres by taking their descriptions of God far too literally out-of-context for the period and not discerning the important difference between a belief in God communicating Himself as an incarnation versus mediation through the imperfect minds of prophets/inspired authors, not to mention the reality of progressive revelation? The OT uses imagery of God possessing "hands" and other bodily organs that are clearly figurative aids for human understanding, and that is how the Church since the earliest times has understood it.

I'm a Catholic and I explained to you how we interpret the Bible and have done for nearly 2,000 years, which is not even the sole repository of divine revelation for us (we don't adhere to sola scriptura).

It is not how I want God to be, rather it is how Jesus - whom I believe actually is God in a way no prophet or inspired author was before him - and the magisterium of the Church (which I regard as His authoritative, infallible body on earth) explains God to me.

I'm not a fundamentalist Protestant or an Orthodox Jew, and I'm inclined as a Catholic to embrace the Church's interpretation of scripture over your own - not least since she is the one who determined what is and isn't scripture.

Firstly, for Catholics Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible. The scriptures are the Word of God in a somewhat lesser capacity, as the written and inspired witness to the Word according to a progressive revelation, with the four gospels of the NT having the most seniority as the witness to the life and ministry of Jesus, the Word incarnate.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians have quite a different way of interpreting the Bible, as I've already described (indeed we don't believe in sola scriptura, accounting sacred tradition as equivalent in authority to the scriptures).

The Catholic view was set out in the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, "Dei Verbum" of Vatican II:

Dei verbum

"...since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men...."​

I shoulda read your so well said post before writing my lame one. You make me feel so inadequate!

 

[Koldo]

Or it might simply be a case of you misreading ancient, near east genres by taking their descriptions of God far too literally out-of-context for the period and not discerning the important difference between a belief in God communicating Himself as an incarnation versus mediation through the imperfect minds of prophets/inspired authors, not to mention the reality of progressive revelation? The OT uses imagery of God possessing "hands" and other bodily organs that are clearly figurative aids for human understanding, and that is how the Church since the earliest times has understood it.

I'm a Catholic and I explained to you how we interpret the Bible and have done for nearly 2,000 years, which is not even the sole repository of divine revelation for us (we don't adhere to sola scriptura).

It is not how I want God to be, rather it is how Jesus - whom I believe actually is God in a way no prophet or inspired author was before him - and the magisterium of the Church (which I regard as His authoritative, infallible body on earth) explains God to me.

I'm not a fundamentalist Protestant or an Orthodox Jew, and I'm inclined as a Catholic to embrace the Church's interpretation of scripture over your own - not least since she is the one who determined what is and isn't scripture.

Firstly, for Catholics Jesus is the Word of God, not the Bible. The scriptures are the Word of God in a somewhat lesser capacity, as the written and inspired witness to the Word according to a progressive revelation, with the four gospels of the NT having the most seniority as the witness to the life and ministry of Jesus, the Word incarnate.

Catholics and Orthodox Christians have quite a different way of interpreting the Bible, as I've already described (indeed we don't believe in sola scriptura, accounting sacred tradition as equivalent in authority to the scriptures).

The Catholic view was set out in the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, "Dei Verbum" of Vatican II:

Dei verbum

"...since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men...."​

While that might be the case, it is still very hard to dismiss it all as a matter of misreading.
It is not as if God either killed or ordered someone to kill only in a couple of situations. If I remember correctly, there are at least 20 passages where that happened.

Figurative language is certainly part of the bible. But it is intellectually dishonest to say that all those passages were mere figurative language.

 

[Vouthon]

While that might be the case, it is still very hard to dismiss it all as a matter of misreading.
It is not as if God either killed or ordered someone to kill only in a couple of situations. If I remember correctly, there are at least 20 passages where that happened.

Figurative language is certainly part of the bible. But it is intellectually dishonest to say that all those passages were mere figurative language.

The passages that you refer to are part of the prevailing literary genre of the era defined by a common, shared vocabulary, imagery, motifs and tropes stretching across neighbouring cultures: a genre of the establishing of the dominion of the national deity following victory over the forces of chaos represented by an enemy also found in the celebratory monuments erected by the kings of the ancient Near East.

Typically, there is victory over the waters of primordial chaos, which is why the Old Testament also discusses a sea monster called Leviathan and shows Yahweh having his victory over the Egyptians in the Red Sea. The Song of Moses in the Book of Exodus, for instance, depicts Pharoah as the agent of chaos whose chariots are devastated in the sea by the Divine Warrior Yahweh. The harsh rule of Pharoah is replaced by the kingship of Yahweh, who redeems his people.

This was how these ancient peoples expressed their understanding of divinity, using the violent characteristics and vivid, military language inherent to their civilizations. To properly understand these texts, you need to have some exposure to Canaanite mythological literature, particularly the epic literary cycle of the primordial victory of the Divine Warrior over foes and his construction of a house of worship.

For our purposes, the best comparative texts to consider would be the Enuma Elish (Babylonian creation myth) from Mesopotamia, the Baal text from Ugarit, the Amarna letters from Egypt etc.

In the Enuma Elish (which in its latest copy dates to the 7th century BCE but probably has roots in circa. 1100 BCE) the god Marduk—the national deity of the Babylonian Empire —defeats the primordial mother goddess Tiamat, and uses her dismembered body to form the cosmos:

Face to face they came, Tiamat and Marduk, sage of the gods.
They engaged in combat, they closed for battle.
The Lord spread his net and made it encircle her…
He shot an arrow which pierced her belly,
Split her down the middle and slit her heart,
Vanquished her and extinguished her life…. (p. 253)

The Lord trampled the lower part of Tiamat,
With his unsparing mace he smashed her skull… (p. 254)​

At this part in the epic, Marduk establishes a place for himself to dwell and rule:

I shall make a house to be a luxurious dwelling for myself,
And shall found his cult center within it,
And I shall establish my private quarters and confirm my kingship….
I hereby name it Babylon (bāb-ili, “gate of gods”), home of the great gods.
We shall make it the center of religion. (p. 259)

​

The comparisons with the biblical verses you have in mind should be apparent: Yahweh defeats Pharoah at the parting of the Red Sea, drowning his chariots, and leads his chosen people to a promised land where Solomon eventually constructs a temple for him to dwell in, a cultic centre in Jerusalem.

That same basic narrative using the sane basic language of warrior gods defeating enemies and then having houses constructing for them to be worshipped in is repeated again, and again and again in the surrounding cultures of the ancient Near East, as with the Urgaritic Epic of Baal (composed circa. 1300 BCE):

Baal seizes the sons of Athirat (=Asherah, the wife of El, Baal’s mother)
The mighty he strikes with a mace,
The attackers he strikes with a weapon,
The young of Yamm (=god of the sea) he drags to the earth.
Then Baal [is enthroned] on his royal throne,
[On the resting place], the throne of his dominion.
​

As you can see, its a completely human and well-established literary tradition that the sacred authors have relied upon to formulate their partial, incomplete and imperfect understanding of God. Yet none of the Babylonian, Ugaritic or Egyptian parallel narratives, when it comes to the construction of the Temple devoted to the worship of the victorious warrior deity, have a message like this to impart to the readers:

1 Chronicles 22:

David said to Solomon: “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the Lord my God. But this word of the Lord came to me: ‘You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quietduring his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name."​

Now, that was not the normal ending to the story: to subvert the very violence inherent in the imagery of a victorious battle God and teach that even a just war pollutes the soldier such that he cannot build a house of worship, which must be constructed by someone who is innocent of human bloodshed and is a man of peace. You don't find that in the Enuma Elish or Epic of Baal.

There is something else budding here, a new way of looking at the world, that was most exquisitely expressed by the prophet Micah in the late 8th century BCE, in which Yahweh's temple becomes the symbol of universal peace and conciliation between nation's, who "beat their swords into plough-shares" and abandon war (again a concept alien to the contemporary Near East):

Micah 4: 1-8

In days to come
the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be raised up above the hills.
Peoples shall stream to it,
and many nations shall come and say:
‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob;
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.’
For out of Zion shall go forth instruction,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between many peoples,
and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away;
they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning-hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more;
but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees,
and no one shall make them afraid;
for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.

For all the peoples walk,
each in the name of its god,
but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God
for ever and ever.
​

Jesus would go on to perfect and complete these non-violent aspirations through his ministry. That's progressive revelation mediated through divine condescension to human ways and weaknesses.

Within the literary framework of the time, therefore, God has imparted genuine divine revelation but by condescending to the language, imagery and perceptions of these primitive Near Eastern people - whereas with Jesus, you have God actually speaking directly in the flesh according to Christian doctrine (although still via the literary genre of a gospel that must also be interpreted in its appropriate first century context). Big difference there.

Your problem IMHO is that you read these texts at face value without conceptualizing them within the literary genre and time period they were written to conform with.

 

[Vouthon]

I shoulda read your so well said post before writing my lame one. You make me feel so inadequate!

Your anything but "inadequate", I love reading your informed posts!

 

[Koldo]

The passages that you refer to are part of the prevailing literary genre of the era defined by a common, shared vocabulary, imagery, motifs and tropes stretching across neighbouring cultures: a genre of the establishing of the dominion of the national deity following victory over the forces of chaos represented by an enemy also found in the celebratory monuments erected by the kings of the ancient Near East.

Typically, there is victory over the waters of primordial chaos, which is why the Old Testament also discusses a sea monster called Leviathan and shows Yahweh having his victory over the Egyptians in the Red Sea. The Song of Moses in the Book of Exodus, for instance, depicts Pharoah as the agent of chaos whose chariots are devastated in the sea by the Divine Warrior Yahweh. The harsh rule of Pharoah is replaced by the kingship of Yahweh, who redeems his people.

This was how these ancient peoples expressed their understanding of divinity, using the violent characteristics and vivid, military language inherent to their civilizations. To properly understand these texts, you need to have some exposure to Canaanite mythological literature, particularly the epic literary cycle of the primordial victory of the Divine Warrior over foes and his construction of a house of worship.

For our purposes, the best comparative texts to consider would be the Enuma Elish (Babylonian creation myth) from Mesopotamia, the Baal text from Ugarit, the Amarna letters from Egypt etc.

In the Enuma Elish (which in its latest copy dates to the 7th century BCE but probably has roots in circa. 1100 BCE) the god Marduk—the national deity of the Babylonian Empire —defeats the primordial mother goddess Tiamat, and uses her dismembered body to form the cosmos:

Face to face they came, Tiamat and Marduk, sage of the gods.
They engaged in combat, they closed for battle.
The Lord spread his net and made it encircle her…
He shot an arrow which pierced her belly,
Split her down the middle and slit her heart,
Vanquished her and extinguished her life…. (p. 253)

The Lord trampled the lower part of Tiamat,
With his unsparing mace he smashed her skull… (p. 254)​

At this part in the epic, Marduk establishes a place for himself to dwell and rule:

I shall make a house to be a luxurious dwelling for myself,
And shall found his cult center within it,
And I shall establish my private quarters and confirm my kingship….
I hereby name it Babylon (bāb-ili, “gate of gods”), home of the great gods.
We shall make it the center of religion. (p. 259)

​

The comparisons with the biblical verses you have in mind should be apparent: Yahweh defeats Pharoah at the parting of the Red Sea, drowning his chariots, and leads his chosen people to a promised land where Solomon eventually constructs a temple for him to dwell in, a cultic centre in Jerusalem.

That same basic narrative using the sane basic language of warrior gods defeating enemies and then having houses constructing for them to be worshipped in is repeated again, and again and again in the surrounding cultures of the ancient Near East, as with the Urgaritic Epic of Baal (composed circa. 1300 BCE):

Baal seizes the sons of Athirat (=Asherah, the wife of El, Baal’s mother)
The mighty he strikes with a mace,
The attackers he strikes with a weapon,
The young of Yamm (=god of the sea) he drags to the earth.
Then Baal [is enthroned] on his royal throne,
[On the resting place], the throne of his dominion.
​

As you can see, its a completely human and well-established literary tradition that the sacred authors have relied upon to formulate their partial, incomplete and imperfect understanding of God. Yet none of the Babylonian, Ugaritic or Egyptian parallel narratives, when it comes to the construction of the Temple devoted to the worship of the victorious warrior deity, have a message like this to impart to the readers:

1 Chronicles 22:

David said to Solomon: “My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the Lord my God. But this word of the Lord came to me: ‘You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quietduring his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name."​

Now, that was not the normal ending to the story: to subvert the very violence inherent in the imagery of a victorious battle God and teach that even a just war pollutes the soldier such that he cannot build a house of worship, which must be constructed by someone who is innocent of human bloodshed and is a man of peace. You don't find that in the Enuma Elish or Epic of Baal.

There is something else budding here, a new way of looking at the world, that was most exquisitely expressed by the prophet Micah in the late 8th century BCE, in which Yahweh's temple becomes the symbol of universal peace and conciliation between nation's, who "beat their swords into plough-shares" and abandon war (again a concept alien to the contemporary Near East):

Micah 4: 1-8

In days to come
the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be raised up above the hills.
Peoples shall stream to it,
and many nations shall come and say:
‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob;
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.’
For out of Zion shall go forth instruction,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
He shall judge between many peoples,
and shall arbitrate between strong nations far away;
they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning-hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more;
but they shall all sit under their own vines and under their own fig trees,
and no one shall make them afraid;
for the mouth of the Lord of hosts has spoken.

For all the peoples walk,
each in the name of its god,
but we will walk in the name of the Lord our God
for ever and ever.
​

Jesus would go on to perfect and complete these non-violent aspirations through his ministry. That's progressive revelation mediated through divine condescension to human ways and weaknesses.

Within the literary framework of the time, therefore, God has imparted genuine divine revelation but by condescending to the language, imagery and perceptions of these primitive Near Eastern people - whereas with Jesus, you have God actually speaking directly in the flesh according to Christian doctrine (although still via the literary genre of a gospel that must also be interpreted in its appropriate first century context). Big difference there.

Your problem IMHO is that you read these texts at face value without conceptualizing them within the literary genre and time period they were written to conform with.

It is convenient to say that those passages shouldn't be interpreted literally. But that's all there is to it.

God killing every firstborn of Egypt ? Merely the interpretation, the authors had back then, of the events that transpired. God didn't really kill them.
God "handing down" the Ten Commandments ? A fact. God really did it.

 

[Vouthon]

It is convenient to say that those passages shouldn't be interpreted literally. But that's all there is to it.

God killing every firstborn of Egypt ? Merely the interpretation, the authors had back then, of the events that transpired. God didn't really kill them.
God "handing down" the Ten Commandments ? A fact. God really did it.

Moses didn't exist, by all likelihood.

The Torah was first committed to writing many, many centuries after he is reputed to have lived. The story of his career in the Torah is written in the manner of a Near Eastern national origin myth using the traditional motifs of the Divine Warrior cycle I've just described in some detail. There is no contemporary archaeological evidence to substantiate the idea that the Israelites were ever liberated from slavery in Egypt.

So no, I don't regard the handing down of the Ten Commandments to be a literal story of historic truth but that doesn't negate the moral truth of the actual commandments, any less than the fictional parable Jesus told of the Good Samaritan negates the reality of its message, which is equally timeless.

Again, you completely ignore the genre and context in which these texts were committed to the written word.

 

[Koldo]

Moses didn't exist, by all likelihood.

The Torah was first committed to writing many, many centuries after he is reputed to have lived. The story of his career in the Torah is written in the manner of a Near Eastern national origin myth using the traditional motifs of the Divine Warrior cycle I've just described in some detail. There is no contemporary archaeological evidence to substantiate the idea that the Israelites were ever liberated from slavery in Egypt.

So no, I don't regard the handing down of the Ten Commandments to be a literal story of historic truth but that doesn't negate the moral truth of the actual commandments, any less than the fictional parable Jesus told of the Good Samaritan negates the reality of its message, which is equally timeless.

Again, you completely ignore the genre and context in which these texts were committed to the written word.

Perhaps you should lecture the Catholic Church on how Moses didn't exist in the first place since it does treat it as as if it did, not to mention that the Ten Commandments are treated as divine revelation. You need to look no further than the Cathecism.

 

[Vouthon]

Perhaps you should lecture the Catholic Church on how Moses didn't exist in the first place since it does treat it as as if it did, not to mention that the Ten Commandments are treated as divine revelation. You need to look no further than the Cathecism.

Your getting muddled here. I explicitly said that I did regard the Ten Commandments as divine revelation by the inspired sacred author of the Torah, as morally true, but I also regard the Parable of the Good Samaritan as divine revelation. That doesn't mean that there actually existed at some time a Samaritan going down the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, its obviously fictional.

Jesus made up the story of the Samaritan and the man mugged by robbers, as with his many other parables, using established literary motifs from his era just as the author(s) of Exodus drew on earlier literary forms, traditions and motifs to formulate the Moses liberation from Egypt narrative. In both cases, the narratives have divinely revealed moral truths tucked within their literary formulations.

Critical Old Testament scholarship has established the genre in which the books of the Torah were written with reference to the unearthed contemporary literature from surrounding cultures and archaeological findings, which I've laid out in part already.

 

[Koldo]

Your getting muddled here. I explicitly said that I did regard the Ten Commandments as divine revelation by the inspired sacred author of the Torah, as morally true, but I also regard the Parable of the Good Samaritan as divine revelation. That doesn't mean that there actually existed at some time a Samaritan going down the road from Jerusalem to Jericho.

I will provide some quotes to make my point clear:

"2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God. They are handed on to us in the books of Exodus14 and Deuteronomy.15 Beginning with the Old Testament, the sacred books refer to the "ten words,"16 but it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed.

2057 The Decalogue must first be understood in the context of the Exodus, God's great liberating event at the center of the Old Covenant. Whether formulated as negative commandments, prohibitions, or as positive precepts such as: "Honor your father and mother," the "ten words" point out the conditions of a life freed from the slavery of sin. The Decalogue is a path of life:



If you love the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live and multiply.17
This liberating power of the Decalogue appears, for example, in the commandment about the sabbath rest, directed also to foreigners and slaves:



You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.18
2058 The "ten words" sum up and proclaim God's law: "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me."19 For this reason these two tables are called "the Testimony." In fact, they contain the terms of the covenant concluded between God and his people. These "tables of the Testimony" were to be deposited in "the ark."20

2059 The "ten words" are pronounced by God in the midst of a theophany ("The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire."21). They belong to God's revelation of himself and his glory. The gift of the Commandments is the gift of God himself and his holy will. In making his will known, God reveals himself to his people.

2060 The gift of the commandments and of the Law is part of the covenant God sealed with his own. In Exodus, the revelation of the "ten words" is granted between the proposal of the covenant22 and its conclusion - after the people had committed themselves to "do" all that the Lord had said, and to "obey" it.23 The Decalogue is never handed on without first recalling the covenant ("The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.").24"

- Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Ten Commandments

"62 After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior.20

63 Israel is the priestly people of God, "called by the name of the LORD", and "the first to hear the word of God",21 the people of "elder brethren" in the faith of Abraham.

64 Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts.22 The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation which will include all the nations.23 Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord will bear this hope. Such holy women as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith and Esther kept alive the hope of Israel's salvation. The purest figure among them is Mary.24"

- Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Revelation of God

One needs to look no further than the Cathecism to know what the Catholic Church proclaims about Moses and the Ten Commandments. And yes, Moses did exist according to the them.

 

[Vouthon]

I will provide some quotes to make my point clear:

"2056 The word "Decalogue" means literally "ten words."11 God revealed these "ten words" to his people on the holy mountain. They were written "with the finger of God,"12 unlike the other commandments written by Moses.13 They are pre-eminently the words of God. They are handed on to us in the books of Exodus14 and Deuteronomy.15 Beginning with the Old Testament, the sacred books refer to the "ten words,"16 but it is in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ that their full meaning will be revealed.

2057 The Decalogue must first be understood in the context of the Exodus, God's great liberating event at the center of the Old Covenant. Whether formulated as negative commandments, prohibitions, or as positive precepts such as: "Honor your father and mother," the "ten words" point out the conditions of a life freed from the slavery of sin. The Decalogue is a path of life:



If you love the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live and multiply.17
This liberating power of the Decalogue appears, for example, in the commandment about the sabbath rest, directed also to foreigners and slaves:



You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out thence with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.18
2058 The "ten words" sum up and proclaim God's law: "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me."19 For this reason these two tables are called "the Testimony." In fact, they contain the terms of the covenant concluded between God and his people. These "tables of the Testimony" were to be deposited in "the ark."20

2059 The "ten words" are pronounced by God in the midst of a theophany ("The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire."21). They belong to God's revelation of himself and his glory. The gift of the Commandments is the gift of God himself and his holy will. In making his will known, God reveals himself to his people.

2060 The gift of the commandments and of the Law is part of the covenant God sealed with his own. In Exodus, the revelation of the "ten words" is granted between the proposal of the covenant22 and its conclusion - after the people had committed themselves to "do" all that the Lord had said, and to "obey" it.23 The Decalogue is never handed on without first recalling the covenant ("The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.").24"

- Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Ten Commandments

"62 After the patriarchs, God formed Israel as his people by freeing them from slavery in Egypt. He established with them the covenant of Mount Sinai and, through Moses, gave them his law so that they would recognize him and serve him as the one living and true God, the provident Father and just judge, and so that they would look for the promised Savior.20

63 Israel is the priestly people of God, "called by the name of the LORD", and "the first to hear the word of God",21 the people of "elder brethren" in the faith of Abraham.

64 Through the prophets, God forms his people in the hope of salvation, in the expectation of a new and everlasting Covenant intended for all, to be written on their hearts.22 The prophets proclaim a radical redemption of the People of God, purification from all their infidelities, a salvation which will include all the nations.23 Above all, the poor and humble of the Lord will bear this hope. Such holy women as Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Judith and Esther kept alive the hope of Israel's salvation. The purest figure among them is Mary.24"

- Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Revelation of God

One needs to look no further than the Cathecism to know what the Catholic Church proclaims about Moses and the Ten Commandments. And yes, Moses did exist according to the them.

Where does anything you have quoted suggest that the Moses narrative had to have literally happened to have imparted divine revelation? There is a list of de fide dogmas that Catholics have to adhere to and the historicity of Moses is not among them.

Whoever wrote down the Ten Commandments received their moral truth from God. I know this because the Catholic Church recognised the Torah as part of the scriptural canon and because Jesus made the Ten Commandments a central plank of his teachings as well in the NT. The text above from the Catechism is merely describing them in the context of the narrative described in Exodus, not infallibly commenting on the historicity of that narrative. That's not the purpose.

As I've already shown, Catholics are taught by the Magisterium that we must interpret scripture according to the literary genres and critical scholarship of the relevant experts.

And that's exactly what I've done. According to them, the Exodus account is not historical and was not intended to be history as we understand it by the original sacred author.

 

[Koldo]

Where does anything you have quoted suggest that the Moses narrative had to have literally happened to have imparted divine revelation? There is a list of de fide dogmas that Catholics have to adhere to and the historicity of Moses is not among them.

Whoever wrote down the Ten Commandments received their moral truth from God. I know this because the Catholic Church recognised the Torah as part of the scriptural canon and because Jesus made the Ten Commandments a central plank of his teachings as well in the NT. The text above from the Catechism is merely describing them in the context of the narrative described in Exodus, not infallibly commenting on the historicity of that narrative. That's not the purpose.

As I've already shown, Catholics are taught by the Magisterium that we must interpret scripture according to the literary genres and critical scholarship of the relevant experts.

And that's exactly what I've done. According to them, the Exodus account is not historical and was not intended to be history as we understand it by the original sacred author.

It doesn't suggest that the Moses narrative had to have literally happened.
It merely shows that the Church teachs it did happen.

Anyway, I digress. If anything, your stance only further supports my claim that interpretations are often done out of convenience. It is inconvenient to have God killing people, therefore it is incorrect to interpret the bible as saying that he did. It is inconvenient to say Moses was a real person, therefore the bible didn't really mean to say that he did exist. It is inconvenient to say the Flood really happened in a worldwide scale, therefore the bible didn't really mean to say it did happen.

 

[Vouthon]

It doesn't suggest that the Moses narrative had to have literally happened.
It merely shows that the Church teachs it did happen.

Anyway, I digress. If anything, your stance only further supports my claim that interpretations are often done out of convenience. It is inconvenient to have God killing people, therefore it is incorrect to interpret the bible as saying that he did. It is inconvenient to say Moses was a real person, therefore the bible didn't really mean to say that he did exist. It is inconvenient to say the Flood really happened in a worldwide scale, therefore the bible didn't really mean to say it did happen.

I profoundly disagree with your analysis.

Firstly, the Church teaches only Faith and Morals. The genre of biblical texts is dictated by historical fact and scholarship, not the Magisterium. It's not a matter of Faith. The Church does not teach that Catholics should accept the Exodus account as historical, rather it teaches us that we must understand it according to its literary genre to engage in proper exegesis of the text (which is a matter of faith) as laid out in Dei Verbum (the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation) which I quoted for you above - and scholars, including Catholic ones, have determined that it isn't historical and was not written as such. So that's that.

Ruth is a charming Old Testament story and it would be nice for me to think it describes literal historical events, as its an inoffensive and beautiful little love story, but it doesn't because that's not the genre it was written in. It's a fable, just like the Book of Tobit, which is equally charming and equally unhistorical.

The Books of Maccabees by contrast are a bloody account of a guerrilla war fought by the oppressed Jews against the Seleucid Empire. Maccabees 1 is a historical account, it just is, because its genre is a historical account. The Maccabean Revolt was largely as described. Maccabees 2 was a more theological and polemical work, by contrast, as opposed to pure history.

The only reason I'm saying Moses didn't exist is because he, by all accounts, didn't, not because I find it convenient. And yes, Noah's Flood didn't actually happen either. It's derived from the much earlier Akkadian tale of the flood hero Atrahasis which is itself derived from the Sumerian story of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. It was therefore written in the established genre of near eastern flood myth, or folklore with a moral message, explicitly indebted to a narrative transmitted by poets from the neighbouring Semitic cultures. The author of Genesis wrote it with this provenance and purpose in mind.

So, I really think you are massively off base.

 

[Koldo]

I profoundly disagree with your analysis.

Firstly, the Church teaches only Faith and Morals. The genre of biblical texts is dictated by historical fact and scholarship, not the Magisterium. It's not a matter of Faith. The Church does not teach that Catholics should accept the Exodus account as historical, rather it teaches us that we must understand it according to its literary genre to engage in proper exegesis of the text (which is a matter of faith) as laid out in Dei Verbum (the dogmatic constitution on divine revelation) which I quoted for you above - and scholars, including Catholic ones, have determined that it isn't historical and was not written as such. So that's that.

Ruth is a charming Old Testament story and it would be nice for me to think it describes literal historical events, as its an inoffensive and beautiful little love story, but it doesn't because that's not the genre it was written in. It's a fable, just like the Book of Tobit, which is equally charming and equally unhistorical.

The Books of Maccabees by contrast are a bloody account of a guerrilla war fought by the oppressed Jews against the Seleucid Empire. Maccabees 1 is a historical account, it just is, because its genre is a historical account. The Maccabean Revolt was largely as described. Maccabees 2 was a more theological and polemical work, by contrast, as opposed to pure history.

I am well-aware the Catholic Church doesn't take the whole bible literally. But consider speeches like this:

"For Israel, the Exodus is the central historical event in which God reveals his powerful action. God sets the Israelites free from slavery in Egypt so that they may return to the Promised Land and worship him as the one true Lord. Israel does not set out to be a people like others — so that it might have national independence — but also to serve God in worship and in life, to create a place for God where men and women are obedient to him, where God is present and worshipped in the world — and of course, not only among the Israelites — but to witness to him also among the other peoples.

The celebration of this event is to make him present here and now, so that God’s action may not be lacking. He fulfilled his plan of liberation and continues to pursue it so that men and women may recognize and serve their Lord and respond to his action with faith and love.

So it was that God revealed himself not only in the primordial act of the Creation, but also by entering our history, the history of a small people which was neither the largest nor the strongest. And this self- revelation of God, which develops through history, culminates in Jesus Christ: God, the Logos, the creative Word who is the origin of the world, took on flesh in Jesus and in him showed the true face of God.

In Jesus every promise is fulfilled, the history of God with humanity culminates in him. When we read the account of the two disciples on their way to Emmaus which St Luke has written down for us, we become clearly aware of the fact that the Person of Christ illuminates the Old Testament, the whole history of salvation, and shows the great unitive design of the two Testaments, it shows the path to his oneness. Jesus, in fact, explains to the two bewildered and disappointed wayfarers that he is the fulfilment of every promise: “and beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (24:27). The Evangelist records the exclamation of the two disciples after they had recognized that their travelling companion was the Lord: “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” (v. 32).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the development of Divine Revelation (cf. nn. 54-64): From the very first the Lord invited men and women to intimate communion with himself and, even when through disobedience they lost his friendship, God did not abandon them to the power of death but time and again offered them covenants (cf. Roman Missal, Eucharistic Prayer IV).

The Catechism retraces God’s journey with man from the Covenant with Noah after the flood, to the call to Abraham to leave his land to be made the father of a multitude of peoples. God forms his People Israel in the event of the Exodus, in the Covenant of Sinai and in the gift, through Moses, of the Law, in order to be recognized and served as the one living and true God. With the prophets, God forms his People in the hope of salvation." - General Audience of 12 December 2012 | BENEDICT XVI

It's clear that those events are meant in a literal way. There is no denying that.
So when you tell me that the Church teachs strictly about Faith and Morals, that is a claim that simply doesn't correspond to reality.

This is not about Papal Infallibility. This is about what the Church teaches.

The only reason I'm saying Moses didn't exist is because he didn't, not because I find it convenient. And yes, Noah's Flood didn't actually happen either. It's derived from the much earlier Babylonian take of Atrahasis which is itself derived from the Sumerian Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh.

I really think you are massively off base.

Because we now know those events didn't transpire as depicted in the bible. So it is convenient to say that the scriptures don't mean they did happen. There is simply no room for them to be completely incorrect and misguided in essence. They must not be. Therefore, if any interpretation would lead one to that conclusion, they must be interpreted as not being literal.