Fifth Commandment; why "kill" rather than the correct "murder"?

[KSU]

The Decalogue reveals our moral obligations in God’s own words. So what could be more worthy of careful linguistic preservation by the Church?

Why, therefore, in the Fifth Commandant, does the Church knowingly use the inarticulate word “kill” rather than the word “murder” when the latter meaning was the intent of God Himself, as understood by Moses and the Jews, and later by the Church itself.

Killing of everything from unjust aggressors to meat animals, in the Bible and the Catechism, is regarded as a good thing, and even a responsibility at certain times. Nevertheless, the Church knows that its preference for “Thou shalt not kill”, rather than the scriptural “Thou shalt not murder”, can be used politically for false and unjust attacks against our Country, our military and our civilian population. Yet it insists on using “kill” in the Fifth Commandment rather than “murder”. Why?

Many good and patriotic but ignorant people can thus be confused and led astray from the true teaching of the Church regarding abortion, self-defense and defense of loved ones and country.

 

[NHInsider]

Disclaimer - I don’t read Hebrew so this is based on others’ work.

My understanding is that the word used in Exodus had in Biblical times a broader meaning although in modern Hebrew it has been narrowed to mean exclusively “murder.”

I think the point, and it’s explicated by Jesus in Matthew 5-7, is that the law is about perfection, and by that standard ANY killing is wrong. It is always an effect of evil to take away the gift of life. The fact that there are cases where circumstances are mitigating (even to the extent of there being situations in which the Law itself prescribes capital punishment) do not change that reality. They are secondary, a result of the fact that we live in a fallen world.

FWIW

 

[KSU]

Thank you, NHInsider, for the reply. I understand your point, but I don’t believe the Church uses “kill” rather than “murder” because of your belief that “It is always an effect of evil to take away the gift of life.” That wording implies that the Fifth Commandment means it is just as evil to take the life of an unjust aggressor as it is for the unjust aggressor to take the lives of your family and you and/or your neighbor.

Catholicism and Pacifism are incompatible. That said, under certain circumstances, such as a sickly 75-year old Priest with no family who depends on him, I would understand a holy person imitating Christ who believes it is better to allow a priest-hating murderer to torture him to death and steal all the parish’s funds rather than use self defense. I would not, however, allow such person to tell me that the Church would like all husbands and fathers to believe the same.

It may be that you intended to say something like “It is always an effect of evil when the gift of life is taken away, even when the person reluctantly taking life is acting without evil and is justified by duty to self, family or country.” But even that is not an answer to my question about the Church’s choice of wording . It is, rather, an example of the confusion and necessory explanation caused by the use of the word “kill” rather than the explicit and correct “murder” in the Commandment.

I understand your point, I hope you can understand mine.

 

[mmmcounts]

The Decalogue reveals our moral obligations in God’s own words. So what could be more worthy of careful linguistic preservation by the Church?

Why, therefore, in the Fifth Commandant, does the Church knowingly use the inarticulate word “kill” rather than the word “murder” when the latter meaning was the intent of God Himself, as understood by Moses and the Jews, and later by the Church itself.

I looked at a dozen different translations before I found one that said “kill” instead of “murder.” The only ones I found that say “kill” are the KJV and the Douay-Rheims, and you know something? It’s not the first time the KJV or the D-R supplied a less-than-perfect translation of an important word.

You really can be ok with this, though. The Bible is still the infallible inspired Word of God. However, if you’re wondering which translation is the divinely inspired translation, it’s none of them. So don’t chain yourself to just one. Look at several when something is in question, and when in doubt, it’s not a bad idea to favor a literal translation.

When you look at all the different translations and only one or two of them say “kill” while thirty-three other ones- including the literal translations- say “murder,” it’s a pretty good bet that the translations saying “kill” did something wrong. You’re right, it should say “murder.” And in all the translations I look at regularly, it does.

 

[Nita]

I looked at a dozen different translations before I found one that said “kill” instead of “murder.” The only ones I found that say “kill” are the KJV and the Douay-Rheims, and you know something? It’s not the first time the KJV or the D-R supplied a less-than-perfect translation of an important word.

The RSV also uses “kill”.

 

[diggerdomer]

Catholicism and Pacifism are incompatible.

Nope. Not true. If you think it is true show us the basis for that claim. There are many well-known pacifists in the Catholic tradition.

Cheers

 

[Nita]

The Decalogue reveals our moral obligations in God’s own words. So what could be more worthy of careful linguistic preservation by the Church?

Why, therefore, in the Fifth Commandant, does the Church knowingly use the inarticulate word “kill” rather than the word “murder” when the latter meaning was the intent of God Himself, as understood by Moses and the Jews, and later by the Church itself.

Killing of everything from unjust aggressors to meat animals, in the Bible and the Catechism, is regarded as a good thing, and even a responsibility at certain times. Nevertheless, the Church knows that its preference for “Thou shalt not kill”, rather than the scriptural “Thou shalt not murder”, can be used politically for false and unjust attacks against our Country, our military and our civilian population. Yet it insists on using “kill” in the Fifth Commandment rather than “murder”. Why?

Many good and patriotic but ignorant people can thus be confused and led astray from the true teaching of the Church regarding abortion, self-defense and defense of loved ones and country.

Like every topic that the Bible covers, you can’t just pick out one verse and interpret that verse properly if you disregard all the other verses that also speak on the same subject.

Regarding killing, you yourself note Scripture passages that make it obvious God did not mean “kill” in the sense of prohibiting all taking of human life. If you read further in the OT, you’ll see that it is the taking of “innocent” life that God forbids.

Exodus 20:13 contains the commandment not to kill. But God, at the same time that He gave the Ten Commandments, gave many other commands to Moses (recorded in the verses that immediately follow the listing of the Ten Commandments). These commands clarified the meaning and application of the basic Ten Commandments. There are quite a few additional commands that address “killing”. For example:
Exodus 23:7 Keep far from a false charge, and do not slay the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked.
There are many other places in the OT that make it clear it is the taking of innocent life that is what offends God. (A word search on “innocent” will bring up many of those instances.)

Nita

 

[Nita]

Catholicism and Pacifism are incompatible.

I agree with Diggerdomer that they are not incompatible. Altho the Church doesn’t command one to be a pacifist, it doesn’t forbid one to be a pacifist.

 

[diggerdomer]

Thanks Nita. You stated what I intended.

Peace

 

[KSU]

diggerdomer, my friend, there is no way you can be unaware of the fact that Catholicism and Pacifism (the doctrine that all war is inherently wrong, and forbidden by the Gospels) are incompatible. The Bible; the Catechism; popular books such as Jesuit Fr. John A. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary; the Catholic Encyclopedia; etc. are not silent on the issue. See Self-Defense or Just War if you can’t find “Pacifism.”

Pacifists love to ignore Luke (RSV) 19: “And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.”, and the fact that Christ allowed Peter to carry a sword, Matthew (RSV) 25. It wasn’t Our Lord’s purpose to be sure that Christians had a means of chopping vegetables.

In any case, the burden to prove that Pacifism and Catholicism are not opposed principles is yours because you are making the claim that I am wrong. Not that I’m never wrong.

 

[KSU]

Per Nita: “There are many other places in the OT that make it clear it is the taking of innocent life that is what offends God. (A word search on ‘innocent’ will bring up many of those instances.)”

Nita, my friend, you make my point for me. Since, as you admit, it is the taking of innocent life (i.e., murder) that is what offends God, not “killing” per se, why does the Church, in most Bibles and in its official teachings such as the Catechism, use the less correct/incorrect “You shall not kill”?

With all due respect, I don’t want to argue about the various meanings of “Pacifism”. I only want to find out why the English speaking Church insists on taking the clear word of God and changing it’s scriptural meaning. It seems to me that to preserve the meaning of the Word of God in this matter, the Church should change “kill” to “murder” or at least “You shall not kill the innocent.”

Quite frankly, my dear, I don’t give a darn about keeping seemingly inappropriate political correctness in the Decalogue to avoid offending pacifists (if that’s the reason), while at the same time confusing Catholics and leaving them vulnerable to political attack.

Peace.

 

[diggerdomer]

diggerdomer, my friend, there is no way you can be unaware of the fact that Catholicism and Pacifism (the doctrine that all war is inherently wrong, and forbidden by the Gospels) are incompatible. The Bible; the Catechism; popular books such as Jesuit Fr. John A. Hardon’s Catholic Dictionary; the Catholic Encyclopedia; etc. are not silent on the issue. See Self-Defense or Just War if you can’t find “Pacifism.”

Pacifists love to ignore Luke (RSV) 19: “And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.”, and the fact that Christ allowed Peter to carry a sword, Matthew (RSV) 25. It wasn’t Our Lord’s purpose to be sure that Christians had a means of chopping vegetables.

In any case, the burden to prove that Pacifism and Catholicism are not opposed principles is yours because you are making the claim that I am wrong. Not that I’m never wrong.

I’m sure you’re never wrong. Good for you.

Still, there’s nothing in Catholic teaching that says pacifism is wrong. It’s not required, but it’s also not banned.

There have been many Catholics who embraced the principle of non-violence, meaning pacifism, and are still completely Catholic. Mother Teresa. Oscar Romero. Dorothy Day. Not to mention any number of canonized saints who rejected violence in all forms.

The burden is on you. I’ve read the Catechism, and do not find anything there saying pacifism or non-violence are contradictory to the Catholic faith. That’s my proof. If you differ, show me where in the Catechism or other Magisterial teaching I am wrong.

Cheers

 

[zach_dunn]

Per Nita: “There are many other places in the OT that make it clear it is the taking of innocent life that is what offends God. (A word search on ‘innocent’ will bring up many of those instances.)”

Nita, my friend, you make my point for me. Since, as you admit, it is the taking of innocent life (i.e., murder) that is what offends God, not “killing” per se, why does the Church, in most Bibles and in its official teachings such as the Catechism, use the less correct/incorrect “You shall not kill”?

Maybe it’s because the Church doesn’t want to teach that it’s ok to kill at all. I’m not saying that you’re never supposed to defend yourself, but taking the life of another human being should be the very last resort. Just think about this for a second, when someone kills someone, they take something that God created, and destroyed it. God loves murders just as much as He loves you and me.

I suppose I could also say that if I were to kill someone (I would never do that, this is just an example), I am judging that person, and deciding they are not worthy or allowed to live anymore. Judgement, particularily on such a devastating level like that, is for God alone. Humans cannot put asunder what God has joined, why should we be able to destroy what God has created?

Just something to think about, FWIW

Pax,
Zach

 

[Nita]

Quite frankly, my dear, I don’t give a darn about keeping seemingly inappropriate political correctness in the Decalogue to avoid offending pacifists (if that’s the reason), while at the same time confusing Catholics and leaving them vulnerable to political attack.

Peace.

I’m really sorry it confused you.
And quite frankly, my dear, I think your situation is rather rare - if it exists at all among Catholics!
My classmates and I learned the Ten Commandments while we were very young. They, and everyone else I knew (young and old) were never “confused” about the meaning of “Thou shalt not kill”.

 

[Nita]

Regardless of whether the commandment is translated “Thou shalt not kill” or “Thou shalt not murder”, explanatory teaching is needed to clarify. One needs to explain what constitutes murder just as one has to explain what constitutes killing.

For example, the Church does not condemn killing in a just war - but does in an unjust war.
Regarding taking life in an unjust war:
Assuming the soldier in an unjust war fights in the normal way (and not in some sadistic manner) it seems to me calling it unjustified “killing” rather than “murdering” more accurately reflects the nuances of the English language.

Just my personal opinion.

 

[jemfinch]

I understand your point, but I don’t believe the Church uses “kill” rather than “murder” because of your belief that “It is always an effect of evil to take away the gift of life.” That wording implies that the Fifth Commandment means it is just as evil to take the life of an unjust aggressor as it is for the unjust aggressor to take the lives of your family and you and/or your neighbor.

No, it implies nothing of the sort. Just because you choose to draw a certain conclusion from someone’s words does not mean that those words logically imply that conclusion: in most circumstances it is just one of many possibilities.

The Church can use kill because the ideal is not to kill, since killing is always an evil act, even if it is permissible in certain circumstances.

Apart from that, I don’t think you’ve adequately proved that “murder” is a more appropriate translation in the decalogue; I’ve seen many compelling arguments to the contrary.

Jeremy

 

[KSU]

…The Church can use kill because the ideal is not to kill, since killing is always an evil act, even if it is permissible in certain circumstances… Jeremy

Friend, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I am looking for answers only in a Roman Catholic context. It is not a Catholic position to believe that “killing is always an evil act.” That sounds more like a Pax Christi International position. As I stated above: “With all due respect, I don’t want to argue about the various meanings of ‘Pacifism’. I only want to find out why the English speaking Church insists on taking the clear word of God [murder] and changing it’s scriptural meaning [to kill].”

mmmcounts, it doesn’t appear this thread is going to yield the answer to my question.

 

[diggerdomer]

Friend, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I am looking for answers only in a Roman Catholic context. It is not a Catholic position to believe that “killing is always an evil act.” That sounds more like a Pax Christi International position. As I stated above: “With all due respect, I don’t want to argue about the various meanings of ‘Pacifism’. I only want to find out why the English speaking Church insists on taking the clear word of God [murder] and changing it’s scriptural meaning [to kill].”

mmmcounts, it doesn’t appear this thread is going to yield the answer to my question.

KSU, I guess to answer your question we need to know Hebrew. Do you know Hebrew, and what the original Hebrew text of Exodus or Deuteronomy said? I sure don’t.

Cheers

 

[jemfinch]

Friend, thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, but I am looking for answers only in a Roman Catholic context.

And that’s the exact answer that I and the previous poster gave you. Seriously, read the catechism. It’s right there in black letters.

It is not a Catholic position to believe that “killing is always an evil act.”

Yes, it is. It is the law of double effect which justifies killing in appropriate circumstances. This is in paragraph 2263 of the Catechism, linked above.

I only want to find out why the English speaking Church insists on taking the clear word of God [murder] and changing it’s scriptural meaning [to kill]."

Clear meaning my arse. I find the arguments that the true meaning of the Hebrew encompassed more types of killing than just murder to be far more convincing than the modern arguments I’ve seen to the contrary.

it doesn’t appear this thread is going to yield the answer to my question.

It seems like you’re not looking for an answer, but agreement.

Jeremy

 

[mmmcounts]

The RSV also uses “kill”.

That’s actually kind of helpful. The D-R and the KJV translations were made within about 20 years of each other, and at that point in time it was probably just the preferred way of translating the word. It was not the best way to do it, but it was the style at the time and the trend changed for the better. The RSV is based mostly off of the American Standard Version and also the KJV. Both the ASV and the KJV say kill, and that’s probably why the RSV continues to say it- because it’s continuing the tradition of a mistake. The NASV says “murder,” as does the NKJV and anything else with a “New” in front of it. Styles of translating change, and in this case it was for the better. But some translations bring the same old stuff to the table without examining it properly, and that’s how examples of badly translated words continue to exist in versions that are relatively new. For this verse, the RSV failed to correct the mistake of the KJV and the ASV, though the NKJV and the NASV did what they were supposed to do. Maybe the D-R and RSV are due for a little update. It doesn’t look like it’s going to happen soon, though.

Hey, look what else can happen when you translate a word wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_(Michelangelo

The D-R, as far as I can tell, is the only translation post-Vulgate that preserves the error. I guess it is possible for the RSV to do something a little differently from the D-R. This is obviously a more blatant translation error, so of course (almost) every subsequent version corrected it. I guess the RSV and D-R translators both felt that “kill” wasn’t such a blatant misstep, though, and if they were going to err, they wanted to err on the side of favoring the older translation. The D-R guys must have felt very strongly about this. I can’t believe they kept the “horned” error in there. At least it gets a footnote most of the time.

Basically, you can figure out what the older translations are that the newer ones rely on, and you can see where the mistake first came up. As for why it came up, though, it really just comes down to a translation error. And the only reason it stays in the new ones is because they want to stay faithful to the old translations, warts and all. Some of the newer translations go all the way back to square one, though, and translate straight from the Hebrew and Greek to English instead of just copying much of the intermediate translations. Between all the scholars and linguists on the planet, the additional ancient texts we’ve found, and the tools we have that allow us to access all that information and apply it, we do have quite a leg up on our predecessors in terms of our ability to accurately and precisely translate the Bible. Those “square one” translations represent a monstrous amount of time and effort put into examining every single word of the ancient text, comparing all the different translations we now have, and determining which one- if any- of them has the right one. Those are the kinds of translations I go with because they’re the best we have, and until another major archaeological discovery on the level of the Dead Sea Scrolls happens, we won’t be able to do much better.