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

[jemfinch]

We may be farther away, but we’ve held onto and preserved what those earlier translators were using before.

Not necessarily. Did you preserve the card catalog from the library of Alexandria? Do you know exactly what texts the translators of the Septuagint had at their disposal? This is just presumption on your part.

We’ve also added to the manuscripts, information, and general knowledge that’s available, and while this never will result in obtaining the autographs of Scripture,

Which someone, possibly even Jerome, had access to.

we now have access to older manuscripts than the oldest ones available 1500 years ago.

You don’t know that, because you don’t (and can’t, really) know what, exactly, was available 1500 years ago.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden in the second century and not found until the 20th, and their value can’t be underestimated.

It seems unlikely that they’d be hidden if they were the only extant manuscripts of their kind available. More likely, there were a number of manuscripts just as good as the dead sea scrolls still accessible to any scholar who really wanted them, and the dead sea scrolls were just one of many, the only that’s survived to this day.

It’s also important to remember how St. Jerome was all on his own in creating the Vulgate. There wasn’t really anyone else available to take on the job.

What does that really mean, though? If Jerome had access to better materials than modern-day scholars, it’s very possible he could still produce a superior result, even with less manpower. Furthermore, he lived far closer to the height of the Jewish and Greek empires, so his contemporary resources were likely far superior to the ones that have survived to this day.

Your whole argument is based on assumption, it seems.

Jeremy

 

[diggerdomer]

Your whole argument is based on assumption, it seems.

There are assumptions on both sides.

Which someone, possibly even Jerome, had access to.

It seems unlikely that they’d be hidden** if they were the only extant manuscripts of their kind available. ** More likely, there were a number of manuscripts just as good as the dead sea scrolls still accessible to any scholar who really wanted them, and the dead sea scrolls were just one of many, the only that’s survived to this day.

**If **Jerome had access to better materials than modern-day scholars, it’s very possible ** he could still produce a superior result, even with less manpower. Furthermore, he lived far closer to the height of the Jewish and Greek empires, so his contemporary resources were likely **far superior to the ones that have survived to this day.

When we’re discussing this type of topic, we’re all going to be limited by the lack of historical knowledge; we simply don’t know as much as we’d like to and as you note we can’t know for sure what folks back there knew. We can only go by the limited historical evidence we have. So of course we’re going to make assumptions.

 

[patrick457]

From a linguistic standpoint:

The Hebrew word used in Exodus 20 - and which only appears in the OT 46 times is ratzakh. It originally referred to killing one person in retaliation for killing someone else; ultimately the word came to mean any killing motivated by animosity.

Ratzakh is used only a few times in the OT. In long passages in Numbers 35, Deuteronomy 19, and Joshua 20-21, it is used to describe the act of someone who has committed what we might call manslaughter. Passing by places where the word is used but there are no contextual clues (Is. 1:21; Jer. 7:9; Hos. 4:2), we have this:

In Judges 20:4, ratzakh is used to describe a woman:

…The man, the Levite, the husband of the woman who was ratzakhed, answered and said, “My concubine and I came to Gibeah which belongs to Benjamin to spend the night. The leaders of Gibeah rose against me, and surrounded the house at night because of me. They wanted to kill (l’harag) me, but instead they abused my concubine so that she died…”

In 1 Kings 21:19, the Lord rhetorically asks Ahab:

"Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, who lives in Samaria. Behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, where he has gone down to take possession of it. You shall speak to him, saying, 'Thus says the LORD: “Have you ratzakhed and also taken possession?”’ And you shall speak to him, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “In the place where dogs licked up the blood of Naboth, dogs shall lick your blood, even yours.”’

In 2 Kings 6:32 we also read:

But Elisha was sitting in his house, and the elders were sitting with him. And he (the king) sent a man from before him, but before the messenger came to him, he said to the elders, “Do you see how this son of an assassin (ben ha-mrtzkh) has sent to take away my head? Look, when the messenger comes, shut the door, and hold him fast at the door. Is not the sound of his master’s feet behind him?”

In Job 24:14:

The rotzakh rises at light; he kills (qatal) the poor and needy; and in the night he is like a thief.

In Ps. 62:3, it describes the fate of someone who is not prepared for what will happen to them:

How long will you threaten a man? Will you slay (t’ratzakhu) your victim, all of you, like a bent wall and a broken fence?
They only plan to drive him away from his lofty place; they delight in falsehood; they pronounce blessings with their mouths, but inwardly they curse. Selah.

In Ps. 94:6 it describes the wicked who kill the widow and the stranger:

They crush your people, O LORD, and afflict your heritage.
They kill (harag) the widow and the stranger, and they murder (i’ratzakhu) the fatherless.
They say, “The LORD does not see, nor does the God of Jacob understand.”

In Prov. 22:13, it describes something a lion will do to the slothful man:

The sluggard says, “There is a lion outside! I will be slain (a’ratzakh) in the midst of the streets!”

In Hos. 6:9, it is applied to priests who do evil deeds:

Gilead is a city of evildoers; it is foot-tracked with blood!
As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder (i’ratzakhu) on the road to Shechem; they have done heinous crimes.

So, to sum, we can see that in these contexts, ratzakh seems to refer to any killing that is done in the manner of a predatory animal; i.e. 1) as an angry reaction to stimulus; or 2) lying in wait, as a predator waits for its prey.

 

[patrick457]

To continue:

The Greek Septuagint uses the word phoneuō, “to murder”, “to put to death” or “to slay”.
The Vulgate uses occides, “to kill”, “to murder”, “to slaughter”, “to slay”, or “cut/knock down”.

Now, let’s see how English Bible translations over the ages rendered it. For the sake of completion, I have chosen to show most (but not all) Bible translations we know of today:

• Wycliff’s Bible (1382 to 1395): Thou schalt not sle.
• Tyndale’s Bible (1530): Thou shalt not kyll.
• Coverdale Bible (1535): Thou shalt not kyll.
• The Bishop’s Bible (1568): Thou shalt not kyll.
• The Geneva Bible (1587): Thou shalt not kill.
• Douay Old Testament (1609): Thou shalt not murder.
• Authorized King James Bible (1611): Thou shalt not kill.
• Douay-Rheims Challoner (1749 and 1752): Thou shalt not kill.
• Young’s Literal Translation (1862): Thou dost not murder.
• The Revised Version (1885): Thou shalt do no murder.
• John Darby Bible (1890): Thou shalt not kill.
• American Standard Version (1901): Thou shalt not kill.
• Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible (1902): Thou shalt not commit murder.
• Old Jewish Publication Society of America Version (1917): Thou shalt not murder.
• Revised Standard Version (1952): You shall not kill.
• New World Translation (1961): You must not murder.
• Bible in Basic English (1965): Do not put anyone to death without cause.
• New American Bible (1970): You shall not kill.
• New American Standard Version (1971): You shall not murder.
• Good News Bible (1976): Do not commit murder.
• New International Version (1978): You shall not murder.
• The Living Torah (1981): Do not commit murder.
• New King James Version (1982): You shall not murder.
• New Jerusalem Bible (1985): You shall not kill.
• New Revised Standard Version (1989): You shall not murder.
• 21st Century King James Version (1994): Thou shalt not kill.
• Contemporary English Version (1995): Do not commit murder.
• New Living Translation (1996): You must not murder.
• World English Bible (ongoing): You shall not murder.
• English Standard Version (2001): You shall not murder.
• The Message (2002): No murder.
• Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004): Do not murder.
• New English Translation (2005): You shall not murder.
• New English Translation of the Septuagint (2007): You shall not murder.
• The Complete Tanach with Rashi: You shall not murder.

 

[patrick457]

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.

This is exactly the reason why in Luke 2:7 as “inn” still persistskatalyma.

 

[jemfinch]

There are assumptions on both sides.

When we’re discussing this type of topic, we’re all going to be limited by the lack of historical knowledge; we simply don’t know as much as we’d like to and as you note we can’t know for sure what folks back there knew. We can only go by the limited historical evidence we have. So of course we’re going to make assumptions.

Yes, my primary point is that your assumptions are far from obvious or compelling. I can see any number of scenarios in which the ancient translators had access to better materials than we do; in fact, it seems more reasonable to me that they did (but again, that’s an assumption of mine, and one I’m not particularly arguing for).

Jeremy

 

[KSU]

patrick457 and mmmcounts, thanks very much. It’s sad to see how, let’s call it “out of step”, most of our Bishops are.

 

[patrick457]

patrick457 and mmmcounts, thanks very much. It’s sad to see how, let’s call it “out of step”, most of our Bishops are.

That reminds me. I’ve got that information from here. Note that while that site is a non-Catholic one, the conclusions the author arrives at is quite consistent with Catholic teaching - within certain boundaries - and the whole “just war” thing AFAIK, but correct me if I’m wrong (emphases mine):

Manslaughter. This one is simple enough, for as noted above, this crime of passion continues to this day. Few would dispute that the command applies here or to negligence.
Murder. Premeditated killing would come under the rubric of an animal lying in wait as above. Here again few would dispute that the command applies.
War. It is here that some difference of opinion arises, and anti-war protesters have at times used this command. In light of the above delineations it appears that such objectors could be right, if a war is pursued under certain conditions. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait would constitute a premeditated act; but our reply war in the Gulf was seen as a matter of liberation and defense, and the current (2002-3) war in Iraq is framed as a war of defense against terrorist elements. While making no statement on that issue, a war waged for such a purpose clearly does not come under the rubric of ratsach, nor would America’s War of Independence, nor World War I and II as a whole (though of course individual acts of ratsach may still occur). Animals do not fight for their freedom from tyranny, and they fight to defend themselves, which is neither done in passion nor is it premeditated.
Capital punishment. As noted above, acts of judgment do not come under the rubric of ratsach. Despite certain rhetoric, capital punishment is not done for predatory reasons, but is framed as a “war” of its own, a defense for society (assuming it is done properly, which many would say, it is not).
Abortion. Polemically abortion opponents have painted abortion as a “predatory” act, and whether they are right is dependent on the identity of the fetus. If a fetus is human, they are right: a life is erased for predatory (that is, personally advantageous) purposes (convenience, for example) barring other circumstances (life of the mother, for example).

 

[Pug]

But I also meant that Rome has begun to realize the value of the Internet as a ready-made storehouse of current information versus the old “Let’s get a Commission together next year to explore this problem, and ask for a report in another couple of years so that we can begin to study the situation in the light of all available data, and then respond.” In the meantime, the lies become accepted as “facts” and the problem festers, infecting more and more people.

Ah. I see what you mean. Let us pray they find the best way to utilize what is there to be seen on the internet. I agree that there is much there, plain as day.

 

[KSU]

Thanks, again, patrick. That’s good stuff, and surprising to see such an example of faith and reasoning.

 

[diggerdomer]

patrick457 and mmmcounts, thanks very much. It’s sad to see how, let’s call it “out of step”, most of our Bishops are.

I’m not directing this at KSU specifically, it’s just an observation from a number of threads I’ve observed on this site. It seems there are so many people who clearly know who the “good” bishops are and who the “out of step” (or worse terms are used) bishops are.

Where do we get this from? I’m sure it’s not a lack of humility, so where?

Probably off topic, just my musings.

 

[KSU]

"It seems there are so many people who clearly know who the ‘good’ bishops are and who the ‘out of step’ (or worse terms are used) bishops are.

Where do we get this from? I’m sure it’s not a lack of humility, so where?

Probably off topic, just my musings."

diggerdomer, my friend, if you can’t spot a Bishop who is out of step, start a new thread. I’ll try to educate you. Let me know here where I can find your new thread.

 

[diggerdomer]

"It seems there are so many people who clearly know who the ‘good’ bishops are and who the ‘out of step’ (or worse terms are used) bishops are.

Where do we get this from? I’m sure it’s not a lack of humility, so where?

Probably off topic, just my musings."

diggerdomer, my friend, if you can’t spot a Bishop who is out of step, start a new thread. I’ll try to educate you. Let me know here where I can find your new thread.

No need for a new thread. That response told me enough. You know more or better than at least some bishops. Thanks, but I’ll take my chances with the college of Bishops and Magisterium.

 

[KSU]

diggerdomer, I wish you had said, “Thanks, but I’ll take my chances with the Bishops who are united with the Magisterium, under the Holy Father, of course.”

“That response told me enough. You know more or better than at least some bishops.”

Yes, unfortunately, I most certainly do “know better” on some things than some Bishops. So should you.

I’ll let you have the last word on this side issue, if you wish, but I’m glad you don’t want to wash dirty linen concerning some Bishops and even a few Cardinals.

 

[colliric]

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.

This is easily explainable. The Latin Vulgate used the latin word for Kill rather than Murder. Both versions were somewhat derivative of it, one was a Complete translation, the other referenced it. “occides” is the word used, meaning “to kill”.

The Douay Rheims being a translation of the Vulgate, naturally should say “kill”. I personally think Saint Jerome, who understood Hebrew, probally had a good grasp on this particular occasion. Nevertheless “Kill” and “murder” seem both to be good approximations of the Hebrew word and are both somewhat corect remembering that translation is at best a good approximation of the original.

 

[colliric]

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.

You are forgetting that the D-R is primarily a translation of the Latin Vulgate and NOT of the original languages. The DR says “thou shalt not Kill”. This is A correct translation of the Vulgate, and so is the word “Horned” which is also from the Latin version rather than the original languages.

The DR never claims to be a translation of the original languages, and it isn’t, it is a translation of the Vulgata.

 

[colliric]

My question is, what does occides mean? Based upon its usage in other places in the Vulgate, it seems to not mean murder as equivalent to English, since occides appears to be something you can do to an animal, cf Dt 12:21. * If *this is so, then the issue may well stem from the Vulgate and occides not meaning murder, not precisely. I am unable to trust Fisheaters for this info, not in the face of the possible usage I can search up in the Vulgate itself from what I suspect are just the various forms of the same verb. (I only sing Latin. I don’t speak it.)

occides does not mean Murder, it means when translated into english primarily Kill.

 

[patrick457]

You are forgetting that the D-R is primarily a translation of the Latin Vulgate and NOT of the original languages. The DR says “thou shalt not Kill”. This is A correct translation of the Vulgate, and so is the word “Horned” which is also from the Latin version rather than the original languages.

Only in the Douay-Rheims Challoner (as far as I can see)! From what I’ve heard, the 1609 Douay Old Testament does have “Thou shalt not murder” in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

As for the quote in Matthew 19:18 (where admittedly, in the Vulgate, homicidium instead of occides is used), the 1582 Rheims New Testament also has “Thou shalt not murder” (both the KJV and the Challoner interestingly has “Thou shalt do no murder”).

 

[patrick457]

occides does not mean Murder, it means when translated into english primarily Kill.

Yes, the verb form does primarily mean “kill” or “slaughter”, though dictionaries I have seen also give “to murder”, “to slay”, “to cut off”, “to fall”, or “to cut down” as secondary meanings.

 

[Pug]

occides does not mean Murder, it means when translated into english primarily Kill.

Thanks, colliric, for answering that, also patrick457 for confirming. That is what it had seemed like to me, that the word in the Vulgate was somewhat general in nature.