An internet site critical of the Bible says, “The tenth commandment, for example, has been erroneously translated as 'thou shalt not covet'. In this case, the structure and etymology of the phrase are misleading, as the words 'covet' and 'take' in Hebrew come from the same root. It is the second word, 'take', that was originally written in the Ten Commandments.”
When one comes across such a definite statement from an anonymous online source without any justification or supporting evidence, it is prudent to investigate the issue in more detail before taking it as Gospel truth. So here are the steps I took myself:
1. The first thing I did after reading the above was to go to modern English translations and paraphrases to see how they translated the two Hebrew words in question (hmd and 'wh). The vast majority translated both words as “covet,” but the following synonyms were also found in these sources: be envious, desire, lust after, set your heart on. Not one modern version chose a synonym for “take.” Keep in mind that most translations are prepared by whole committees of experts in biblical history, theology and languages.
2. Next I decided to go to an exhaustive analytical concordance to see if the internet author was correct in stating that “covet” and “take” come from the same Hebrew root. There are a great number of words for “take” or “steal” listed there, but not one has the remotest similarity to hmd or 'wh.
3. Since the issue is one of word meanings, the next convenient sources I consulted were the multi-volume sets of the New International dictionaries of Hebrew and Greek words published by Zondervan. Many of the comments below come from articles in these valuable resources, and not one even hinted that either of the two Hebrew words in question were related to “take.”
4. Then a good thing to ask is whether the internet critic's comments even make logical sense in the first place. In looking at the Ten Commandments, one can see that there are already commands against stealing from anyone and from committing adultery with another man's wife. Since that is so, why would there be any need to add a tenth command which simply repeats those restrictions, assuming that the original word was “take” instead of “covet?”
5, Lastly, I turned to scholarly commentaries on Exodus and Deuteronomy to see what they might have to add, and it was there that I found the only hint as to the source of the internet comment.
With that general background in view, here are the detailed comments from various scholarly sources, beginning with those who generally confirm “covet” or its equivalent as the proper translation:
“Note...that in the Exodus version of the commandment about coveting (20:17), the order is house and wife (and the vb. for coveting a house and wife is hmd). By contrast, in Deut 5:21 the order is wife and house (and the vb. for coveting a wife is hmd, while that for coveting a house is 'wh).” (Hamilton)
“The root 'wh is found only in the West Semitic languages and has as its basis the notion of 'desire,' whether that be good (as in the will of Yahweh expressed by the vb. In Ps 132:13,14), bad (as in Prov 21:10), acquiring the sense of 'lust, covet' (as in Deut 5:21) or neutral (as in Deut 14:20)...In the hitp.[a particular verb form], however, a reflexive or middle voice is apparent, and the vb. itself is nuanced toward one's own person. In context it accordingly acquires the meaning 'desire selfishly, covet [lustfully]' as in Deut 5:21, where 'wh is paralleled by hmd, covet, the vb. used for both clauses of Exodus 20:17.” (W.C. Williams)
Talley comments on the Hebrew root hmd: “This vb. is also used in the form of a command, lo tnhmod (Exod 20:17 [2x]; Deut 5:21; 7:25)...These passages also point to the desire to obtain the object, rather than simply to describe or enjoy it.”
Since the condemnation of a mere thought seems to be more of a New Testament concept than one belonging in the Old Testament, that might add ammunition to the critic's comments. However, G.H. Hall notes: “On rare occasions even the desire for another woman is condemned...(Job 31:1,7-8; cf. Exod 20:17; Prov 6:25-26; Matt 5:28).”
“If the tenth commandment (Exod. 20:17) forbids such [evil] desire, it is because God desires from men not merely obedience in acts, but also in their words, thoughts, looks, efforts and wishes. He desires love from the whole heart (Deut. 6:5).” (Schoenweiss)
“You are not to 'lust for, desire obsessively.' The clear implication of this...is desire for one's own possession or use.” (Durham)
Harman: “The final word [i.e. command] is different from the others in that it is directed against inward motives rather than outward actions...It may well be that this final commandment is a summarizing one, pointing attention to the fact that desire is the root of all other sins, as all coveting comes from the heart (Prov 6:25).”
Cole disagrees with Harman's opinion and states, “It is sometimes claimed that this is the only one of the ten commandments which prohibits an attitude of mind rather than an outward act: but to make this distinction is probably to misunderstand Hebrew thought. As in the case of 'loving' and 'hating', 'desiring' is an activity, almost equivalent to 'seeking' to acquire.”
This last statement attempts to bridge the gap between those holding objective and subjective stances regarding this verse. It prepares us for a discussion with the internet comment that started out this post and deals with the probable source of that comment. The two sources quoted below in some detail come from scholars who represent very different theological backgrounds, and yet they both agree that there is no reason that “covet” should be replaced by “take.”
Durham: “An array of attempts has been made to 'reconstruct' the original form of the commandments...All such attempts are of course speculation; even though the assumption of an original list of very brief commands is probably a correct one, any precise recovery of such an Ur-[i.e. original]-form is not possible, given the information available to us...The question whether the verb may also suggest action as well as desire, particularly since the other nine commandments appear to command specific actions, has complicated the understanding of the tenth commandment...In every OT passage in which 'desire' leads to actual possession, a second verb is supplied to make that additional meaning clear...Just as the first commandment 'You are not to have other gods,' provides the foundation for covenantal relationship, so this tenth commandment 'You are not to desire for yourself..,' describes the foundation for the severance of covenantal relationship...The tenth commandment thus functions as a kind of summary commandment, the violation of which is a first step that can lead to a violation of any one or all the rest of the commandments. As such, it is necessarily all-embracing and descriptive of an attitude rather than a deed.”
Childs reviews in detail the arguments pro and con regarding whether the prohibition in Exodus and Deuteronomy refers to a subjective attitude or an objective action. He concludes: “The Deuteronomic substitution of the verb hit 'awweh did not mark a qualitative difference of approach which had the effect of internalizing a previous action-oriented commandment. Here a false interpretation of Israel's religious development is also at work. Rather, the Deuteronomic recension simply made more explicit the subjective side of the prohibition which was already contained in the original command. Moran has provided a good check against basing an interpretation of an commandment too much upon a reconstructed historical transformation, the different stages of which have been exaggerated.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments