Well, I am about to do something monumental.
Wait for it...
I was WRONG.
Or at least, I was making a problem unnecessarily difficult. You see, I wasn't entirely convinced that the position I outlined in my previous post was totally orthodox. Not that the JBC is declaring heresy or anything. But I was getting a slightly uneasy feeling in my stomach as I argued that God's commands in Joshua and Judges could be re-interpreted so that, wherever God is "speaking", what we're really seeing is an outdated understanding of God's permissive will; and that this could be held without any violence done to the notion of Biblical inerrancy.
Kind of like how, if I'm not totally convinced I'm doing something smart, sometimes I'll run it by Mom casually--you know, as if I was convinced it was smart--and I take careful note of her reaction. Now I may not always agree with Ma (I love you Ma) but more than once that reaction of hers has been a good "common sense" barometer.
But in this case, instead of Mom, I ran my thinking by the folks at forums.catholic.com. That post was ignored rather quickly (although now it has two helpful posts by "Verbum" and, maybe less so, by "Genesis315".
Providentially, another post popped up on the same subject which got a lot more attention--I guess it had a better title. And was shorter. But I jumped right in (and, if I do say so, with some good one-liners) and what came out was some good solid apologetics, courtesy of Scott Hahn, who I haven't read much of--partially because intellectual snobbery dictates that one avoid scholars whose books appear on the shelves of kitschy Catholic gift shops. Alas this is also why I have been deprived of Fulton Sheen. Am I inconsistent for devouring essays by C.S. Lewis? Naw; I'll never read Narnia.
Anyway, what Hahn did for me was help to make an important adjustment. You see, there's a fault line somewhere between the overall Biblical doctrine of God and the way God appears in the Deuteronomical history. My mistake was not in believing that there was a fault-line, but in where I placed it. I said it may have been the incomplete understanding of God by the inspired authors. To preserve orthodoxy, one need only to move the fault-line backwards a bit--to the nature of deuteronomy - the second law - itself: a law for a broken people, which permitted evil because, given God's overarching plan for salvation, no other mode of divine intervention would be consistent with God's very self.