In light of the subject which is in recent view on the blog, I recommend the chapter on "The Church and the Bible," found on page 97.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The Faith of Our Fathers
In light of the subject which is in recent view on the blog, I recommend the chapter on "The Church and the Bible," found on page 97.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can't read the whole chapter right now, but his quote out of Deuteronomy 17 on page 98 does not refer to scriptural questions, but to civil matters ("between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke"). This is not any argument for the Roman Catholic institution to claim the right to being the divinely appointed custodian and interpreter of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteYou'll notice that the context of the passage has to do with more than merely civil matters. Beginning in chapter twelve and continuing through nineteen, until chapter twenty-six, Moses is expounding the Deuteronomic law. This code deals with both religious and, as you say, civil matters. The passage in question follows 17:4, which specifies covenant infractions. This is primarily a religious context.
You cite "blood and blood", etc., as showing that only civil matters are at stake. Is your understanding of "civil" here truly biblical? You seem to be supposing that the Israelites had a clear notion of the difference between sacred and civil matters, and that they kept the sacred and civil realms of human life separate. This sounds more like an expression the ideas of 18th century philosophes, or a certain interpretation of Jefferson's "wall of separation", than the belief and practice of Ancient Israel.
The question must be asked: if the matters spoken of in Deut. 17:7ff. were merely or exclusively civil, why were Priests and, ultimately, the High Priest--religious authorities--making determinations on the interpretation of the Law, its application and the guilt of disputing parties? They were making such determinations because there was no distinction and separation between sacred and civil matters for ancient Hebrews, in the manner you're presuming.
Finally, you seem to understand "blood for blood", etc., as prescriptive--a complete list of the instances or kinds of cases that must be brought before the priests and High Priest for judgment. If you're not presuming this, with respect to either the instances of the cases, or the kinds of cases that must be brought before the priests, then you can't limit verse seven to civil matters alone. But this would defeat your claim. Therefore....
Given the context, these examples you've noted, are better read as descriptive. Moses isn't providing an exhaustive list, he's merely providing examples of kinds of cases (or disputes) that can and should be brought to the priests for resolution.