We are considering:
לא תרצח
roughly pronouced as “lo tirtzach.” What did God mean, or implicate? Did the
implicature was _caught_ by Moses? Ritchie appeals to context, but I wonder if
Moses did.
Multiple translations exist, and this would allow Gr- for an exercise in
linguistic ‘botany’: Consider:
Wycliffe: Thou schalt not sle. (i.e. slay).
Tyndale Thou shalt not kyll.
MSTC Thou shalt not kill. (Note the subtle change from ‘kyll’ to ‘kill’. “I did
not kill. I kylled.”
YLT: Thou dost not murder.
ERV Thou shalt do no murder
JPS_ASV_Byz Thou shalt not murder. (Note the difference in the position of the
negative particle: “not”; rather than ‘no’ as in “Thou shalt do no murder.”)
Rotherham: Thou shalt not commit murder.
CLV: You shall not murder. (Note the use of ‘you’ as opposed to ‘thou’ –
originally first person PLURAL, ‘you’ was)
BBE: Do not put anyone to death without cause.
ECB: Murder not.
AKJV: You shall not kill.
NSB: Do not murder.
In any case,
לא תרצח
(lo tirtzach) is variously translated as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt
not murder".
I suppose I prefer the terse “lo tirtzach.” After all, the utterance was
m-intended (as Gr- would say) to Moses, who, we assume, knew what that meant
(but cfr. Davies, “On knowing a language,” Mind).
God’s imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt (For
bloodguilt, see: Genesis 4:10, Genesis 9:6, Genesis 42:22, Exodus 22:2–2,
Leviticus 17:4, Leviticus 20, Numbers 20, Deuteronomy 19, Deuteronomy 32:43,
Joshua 2:19, Judges 9:24, 1 Samuel 25, 2 Samuel 1, 2 Samuel 21, 1 Kings 2, 1
Kings 21:19, 2 Kings 24:4, Psalm 9:12, Psalm 51:14, Psalm 106:38, Proverbs
6:17, Isaiah 1:15, Isaiah 26:21, Jeremiah 22:17, Lamentations 4:13, Ezekiel
9:9, Ezekiel 36:18, Hosea 4:2, Joel 3:19, Habakkuk 2:8, Matthew 23:30–35,
Matthew 27:4, Luke 11:50–51, Romans 3:15, Revelation 6:10, and Revelation
18:24).
Besides the context pre-dating this, that Ritchie refers to, The Bible
contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but The Bible does not
prohibit killing in the _context_ of
i. warfare (1Kings 2:5–6)
ii. capital punishment (Leviticus 20:9–16) and
iii. self-defence (Exodus 22:2–3)
which are considered justified.
If I understand McEvoy alright (he applied the concept of God’s implicature
here), the imperative becomes ‘ceteris paribus’: “Thou shalt not kill, UNLESS
in warfare, capital punishment, or self-defence”. Vide Gr- on “Unless”.
“Unless” turns what looks like a categorical imperative into, possibly, a
hypothetical one. But not necessarily so.
For the record, which is a good thing, the so-called New Testament is in
agreement that murder is a grave moral evil (vide: Matthew 5:21, Matthew 15:19,
Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:7, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, 1 Timothy
1:9, James 2:11, and Revelation 21:8), and references the Old Testament view of
bloodguilt (vide: Matthew 23:30–35, Matthew 27:4, Luke 11:50–51, Romans 3:15,
Revelation 6:10, and Revelation 18:24).
Cheers,
Speranza
McEvoy: “God's "Ten Commandments" leave so much understated or implied - "Thou
shalt not kill", for example, where it is not stated what we must not kill,
only implied that it is "other humans", and in fact originally only that subset
within the tribes of Israel. And without God making clear such killing (as is
prohibited) is a very bad thing, not just inadvisable or a bit cheeky. That's a
lot of understatement. And a lot of impliedness. You'd think God was just
speaking off-the-cuff, not making Commandments. If laws were drafted this way,
there'd be no end of trouble. Otoh, God probably realised it wasn't feasible to
draft watertight Commandments because the tablets would be too heavy for Moses
for carry down the mountain. Hence God make implicature central to
understanding everything.”
