It is amazing how an implicature -- God's implicature, as it were, if I
understand McEvoy's view alright [vide quotation below], can be diachronic. It
may welll be Matthew Henry who first worked out God's implicature (to Moses) in
the fifth commandment. Or so some think. For Henry notes:
"This is one of the laws of nature, and was strongly enforced by the precepts
given to Noah and his sons, Gen. 9:5, 6. It does not forbid killing in lawful
war, or in our own necessary defence, nor the magistrate’s putting offenders to
death, for those things tend to the preserving of life; but it forbids all
malice and hatred to the person of any (for he that hateth his brother is a
murderer), and all personal revenge arising therefrom; also all rash anger upon
sudden provocations, and hurt said or done, or aimed to be done, in passion: of
this our Saviour expounds this commandment, Mt. 5:22. And, as that which is
worst of all, it forbids persecution, laying wait for the blood of the innocent
and excellent ones of the earth."
Gruenbaum once said, "How clever language is." And it is! God intends Moses to
grasp the implicature in HIS choice of expression.
The expression “רצח” -- r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh,
etc. -- is the expression in the original text that is translated as “slay,”
"murder" or "kill".
But the original expression has a wider range of meanings (if not ‘senses,’
surely), generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to
break, to dash to pieces" (“I broke a glass”, “Tommy dashed the expensive vase
to pieces”) as well as "slay,” “kill,” and “murder".
According to The Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone, outside
the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered
“retzach.” (It’s more controversial with dashing a vase to pieces, or breaking
a stick).
But if the killing is accidental, or as Gruenbaum would prefer, unintentional,
the accused must not leave the city (provided he does not leave in the
countryside), OR he will be considered guilty of intentional murder.
Curiously, the Bible never uses the expression “retzach” in conjunction with
war.
The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of blood-guilt, is expressed
with the expression “n-k-h,” "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill.” (As in
“He hit the ball.”)
This expression, ‘n-k-h’ (to strike, smite, hit, beat, but also slay or kill)
is used of an Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the
Egyptian in retaliation (Exodus 2:11-12).
The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people
that commit “n-k-h.”
The commandment against murder, that McEvoy finds ‘implicatural’ in nature, can
be viewed as a “legal” issue governing human relationships, noting that the
first FOUR commandments relate strongly to man’s duty TO GOD, while the latter
SIX describe duties toward other humans.
The commandment against murder may be viewed as based in respect for God
Himself. The argument would run as follows:
Since man is made in God's image, the shedding of innocent blood is viewed as
an offense against God.
"The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you
are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your
brother's blood from your hand." Genesis 4:10-11
The “Genesis” narrative portrays the prohibition of shedding innocent blood as
an important aspect of God's covenant with Noah, of the ark fame.
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made
man in his own image.— Genesis 9:6.
The Torah portrays murder as a capital crime and describes a number of details
(and is thus non-implicatural in nature) in the moral understanding and legal
implementation of consequences.
The Priestly Code allows the victim's next of kin (avenger of blood) exact
retribution on the suspect.
But the accused can seek sanctuary in a city of refuge.
The right of the avenger of blood to such revenge ceases, conventionally (D. K.
Lewis would say) upon the death of the person who was the High Priest at the
time of the crime.
Another expression meaning "to kill, slay, murder, destroy, ruin" is “h-r-g,”
used of Cain slaying Abel (Genesis 4:8).
When he is driven into exile, complaining that "every one that findeth me shall
slay me" (Genesis 4:14), Cain uses this verb (h-r-g).
The Septuagint uses the expression “harag,” and Augustine of Hippo recognizes
that this does NOT extend to wars or capital punishment. (There is a
disimplicature here – as Sidonius would have it).
Most subsequent translations follow Jerome's Vulgate.
While Jerome did have access to Jewish scholars, "even the Jewish translators
were not unanimous in maintaining a consistent distinctions between the various
Hebrew roots.”
Jerome's choice of the expression “occidere,” “to kill,” reflects the broader
range of meanings, if not implicatures.
The biblical refrain for those justly executed as due punishment for crimes is
the idiomatic phrase, as Gruenbaum would have it, that "their blood will be on
their own heads."
This circumlocution expresses the idea that those guilty of certain actions
have brought the shedding of blood upon themselves, and those carrying out due
punishment do not bear blood-guilt.
The ancient texts make a distinction between the moral and legal prohibition of
shedding of innocent blood and killing in battle.
This distinction has been explained as one of lexical choice between "harag"
(killing) and "ratzah" (murder). Being different expressions, they surely
invite different implicatures.
And stuff.
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.”
