The History of the Short Form of the Tenth Commandment

[Stephan Huller]

Watson seems to be on target in suggesting that the Septuagint's version of the commands regarding coveting serves 'to differentiate sexual desire for an illicit object from the other prohibited desires and to present it as paradigmatic of all such prohibited desires'. In this way the LXX 'invites reflection on the problematic nature of “desire” as such, tacitly drawing upon the often negative connotations of the corresponding Greek noun, epithumia. Paul can therefore cite the tenth commandment in an abbreviated form in which “desire” itself is prohibited, without reference to specific objects'. This abbreviation 'has the efl'ect of widening the scope of the commandment. '29 Others have pointed Others have pointed out that 'the generalizing omission of the compound objects ('τὴν γυναῖκα) is standard practice in Diaspora Judaism'

Thankfully this scholar basically plagiarizes his sources so when you copy and paste his text into Google the original sources appear (first with Watson then Stanley). Here is what Stanley writes:

Though formally an instance of "limited selection," the generalizing omission of the compound objects (τὴν γυναῖκα etc.) when citing this commandment is standard practice in Diaspora Judaism.57 The foreshortening of the verse here is thus to be attributed to oral tradition, not to Paul's specific literary purpose

57 Koch, Schrift, 1 17, citing K. Berger, Die Gesetzeauslegung Jesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament. Teil I: Markus und Parallelen, WMANT 40 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972). 346-7.

The author doesn't even read German because 'Die Gesetzeauslegung' isn't even a fucking word, it's 'Gesetzesauslegung' and the title Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. So again it would seem likely copying out what someone else said about the book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NEevAw ... 22&f=false

Both English speaking scholars cite the same source and make the same mistake in the title 'Die Gesetzeauslegung Jesu' what are the odds of that?

And then when I did a Google search I found that everyone seems to plagiarize this footnote. Robert Jewett in his Commentary on Romans writes:

57 Koch, Schrift, 116-17, discusses the omission of this commandment as an ad hoc decision by Paul, offering no suggestion about its motivation.

So we can see how brainless most scholarship really is. All thought on Romans 7:7 was really done by Koch and everyone else just cites his work. Luckily I can read German.

[Stephan Huller]

So it would seem that because each field of study treats the problem separately:

1. the widespread use of the short form for the commandments in mezuzahs among groups that diverged from one another in deep antiquity (Samaritans, Jews, Karaites)
2. the "generalizing omission of the compound objects (τὴν γυναῖκα etc.) when citing this commandment is standard practice in Diaspora Judaism"
3. Philo's preference for the short form of the ninth and tenth commandments
4. Paul's use of the short form of the tenth commandment
5. Clement's witness of Paul citing the earliest gospel referencing the short form of the tenth commandment

are to be attributed to a tradition. For the authors acknowledge this shortened tenth commandment is to be "attributed to oral tradition, not to Paul's specific literary purpose." But is it just an 'oral tradition' or as I would argue a rival textual witness - i.e. a physical testimony placed in the synagogues with the original 'short form' of the commandments?

Consider for a moment what it says toward the end of Deuteronomy:

When all these blessings and curses I have set before you come on you and you take them to heart wherever the Lord your God disperses you among the nations, 2 and when you and your children return to the Lord your God and obey him with all your heart and with all your soul according to everything I command you today, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes[a] and have compassion on you and gather you again from all the nations where he scattered you. 4 Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the Lord your God will gather you and bring you back. 5 He will bring you to the land that belonged to your ancestors, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your ancestors. 6 The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live. 7 The Lord your God will put all these curses on your enemies who hate and persecute you. 8 You will again obey the Lord and follow all his commands I am giving you today. 9 Then the Lord your God will make you most prosperous in all the work of your hands and in the fruit of your womb, the young of your livestock and the crops of your land. The Lord will again delight in you and make you prosperous, just as he delighted in your ancestors, 10 if you listen to the voice of the Lord your God and keep his commands and decrees that are written in this writing (sepher) of the Law and turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.

11 Now these commandments (hammiswah) what I am commanding (mesawweka) you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, this thing (hadabbar) is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

15 See, I set (netatti) before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you (mesawweka) today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

While it has been common practice today to assume that because in the synagogues the scrolls of the Law of Ezra/Moses are prominently displayed this text is what the author had in mind, Heschel's evidence argues for another possibility - that the heretics assumed that the ten commandments were meant and that the Torah of Ezra, originally conceived (or sold to the people) as just a narrative describing what happened with the introduction of the ten commandments, now took the place of the 'torah of heaven' originally commandment by Moses.

To understand this you will have to see the manner in which the earliest Karaite exegesis emphasizes the role of the 'human narrator' of the text throughout. In other words, the text itself was not holy and originally another Torah - the Torah of heaven - was meant to be venerated.

It is important to also note that when Paul cites the shortened tenth commandment he goes on to cite the section we just discussed from Deuteronomy. It is again pointing to this short list of commandments which was recited over and over in the synagogues (= learned by heart) which was God's original command, not the Law of Ezra/Moses. So the narrative in Deuteronomy continues:

So Moses wrote this law (hazzot ha-torah) and gave it to the Levitical priests, who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel. 10 Then Moses commanded them: “At the end of every seven years, in the year for canceling debts, during the Festival of Tabernacles, 11 when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God at the place he will choose, you shall read this law before them in their hearing. 12 Assemble the people—men, women and children, and the foreigners residing in your towns—so they can listen and learn to fear the Lord your God and follow carefully all the words of this law (hazzot ha-torah). 13 Their children, who do not know this law, must hear it and learn to fear the Lord your God as long as you live in the land you are crossing the Jordan to possess.”

14 The Lord said to Moses, “Now the day of your death is near. Call Joshua and present yourselves at the tent of meeting, where I will commission him.” So Moses and Joshua came and presented themselves at the tent of meeting.

15 Then the Lord appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent. 16 And the Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. 17 And in that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and calamities will come on them, and in that day they will ask, ‘Have not these disasters come on us because our God is not with us?’ 18 And I will certainly hide my face in that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods.

19 “Now write down this song and teach it to the Israelites and have them sing it, so that it may be a witness for me against them. 20 When I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath to their ancestors, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my covenant. 21 And when many disasters and calamities come on them, this song will testify against them, because it will not be forgotten by their descendants. I know what they are disposed to do, even before I bring them into the land I promised them on oath.” 22 So Moses wrote down this song that day and taught it to the Israelites.

23 The Lord gave this command to Joshua son of Nun: “Be strong and courageous, for you will bring the Israelites into the land I promised them on oath, and I myself will be with you.”

24 After Moses finished writing in a writing the words of this law (hazzot ha-torah) from beginning to end, 25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord: 26 “Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. 27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the Lord while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die! 28 Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call the heavens and the earth to testify against them. 29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall on you because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord and arouse his anger by what your hands have made.”

Now let me ask you fairly and honestly. Could the author have possibly meant that Moses wrote out the words of the Pentateuch from beginning to end - a narrative which included the very description of Moses writing out the words from beginning to end (i.e. this very section)? Could the original people who received this text have actually believed this? Or - as is more reasonable - the original account depicted Moses receiving and writing the Ten Commandments as 'this Law' that children were to learn by heart (how could children have learned by heart the entire Torah?). Of course the heretics were right. The idea was that only the ten commandments came from God, only the ten commandments were to be displayed in the gathering places of Jews. The Pentateuch was only written at the time of Moses. What was being described was the 'short form' of the commandments displayed in synagogues and gathering places of the Jews long before Ezra wrote this very text.

Remember also that the Pentateuch goes on to describe Moses death. Could anyone have originally believed fresh from the hand of Ezra that the Israelites received a description not only of their receiving the text but also of Moses's death weeks later as we have it? It's completely stupid and unbelievable. The early Christians were only perpetuating the original beliefs of Judaism and Samaritans with respect to another Law - that of the Ten Commandments - being the heavenly Torah and the gospel narrative reframes the correct understanding with Jesus the god who gave the Law to Moses explaining how the destruction of the temple was a necessary first step to restoring the correct practices. Notice also that 'loving god' through the commandments appears here.

[Stephan Huller]

I don't mean to sound my own horn but it isn't obvious by now that this interpretation of the cultural context of the gospel is superior to

(a) anything present at this forum or any forum on the internet
(b) anything written by any mythicist in a book
(c) anyone arguing for a historical Jesus - a 'Jew' of some kind - who wanted to start a revolution or was a crazy magician or any invented nonsense of this sort
(d) anything ever said about Jesus by anyone in the history of the study of the Bible

ok I will stop before someone takes me too seriously. But really this is the right answer. The gospel was a Jewish text, written about the appearance of the 'second god' (God's Man or Ish) who gave the Torah to Moses and then was disgusted to see that Ezra's text had come as a replacement (with its repulsive animal sacrifices) to the original giving at Sinai. Why are we to prefer Osiris, Mithras, a carpenter, a revolutionary, a magician to this understanding. This is clearly Paul's original vision.

[Stephan Huller]

And that's why the gospel isn't a new Law. That's why Jesus didn't write anything. He already gave the world the true law. The true law was the ten commandments. The false law the text written by Ezra. What Jesus the god introduced (through Paul as his spokesman) was a way of uniting with divinity to fulfill the ten commandments and its penultimate (and most difficult) command - not to lust. The Ebionites who rejected Paul may well have just stuck with the ten commandments.

[Ulan]

I don't understand this whole "objection to the law" business, anyway. Didn't the Christians do away with the Mosaic Laws in more general terms? Frex, where did the Sabbath go? And where do the Marcionites come into play here?

While I see some Christian fixation on the ten commandments today, there's also the idea of the return to Noahide Laws, which lurks in texts like Acts. Which was the original covenant, anyway.

[Stephan Huller]

the Marcionite position on the Sabbath is unclear. I will bring up the only evidence we have from Epiphanius which - as is no surprise - confusing.

[Stephan Huller]

Here is an unedited version of the German text (needs work to add Greek script):

Der hellenistische Grundsatz von der tm^uxln als der Quelle aller Übel findet sich auch in der Moses Apk § 19: £7u&uu.Ca yip iofiv y.zfxXr, 7rdcoT)s dtixccp-rlzc (sentenzartiger Einschub durch Stichwortverbindung) ; ebenso am Schluß einer dekalogartigen Reihe (6.7.6.) in der Abraham Apk („Ich sah daselbst die Begierde und in ihrer Hand das Haupt einer jeden Übertretung"). Diese zentrale Bedeutung der C7ci&uu.(<x macht das 10. Gebot für das hellenistische Judentum zu einem Zentralgebot, da mit der „Begierde" eben auch alle anderen Gebote übertreten sind . Das wird beispielhaft deutlich in Rom 7,7, wonach Pls (wie Adam) eben dieses Gebot (oüx fm<k>jd)<m<;) übertrat und damit die „Gesamtheit" der Sünde ließ. Diese Auslegung des 10. Gebotes wird vorzüglich deutlich in Habgier werden zurückgeführt auf die Warnung: \i)) tv n&bti tm&upla;. Denn das sei ein Kennzeichen der Heiden. Obwohl im Kontext lediglich davon die Rede ist, daß Unzucht vermieden werden soll (vgl. V. 4.7 f), zieht die Nennung der Begierde sogleich auch den Hinweis auf Habsucht nach sich. Die Verbindung von Begierde und Ehebruch findet sich auch in Pistis Sophia K. 140 (Übs. Till 240,3). Auf Speisen und Frauen beziehen sich auch die Begierden in Herrn Mand VI, II, 5; nach Herrn Mand XII, 1,3-2,1 bringt Tod die Begierde nach anderer Frau, anderem Mann, nach Reichtum oder Speisen1. In syr Didask ist die Deutung des Begehrens schon so weit vorangeschritten, daß schon sich zu schmücken sündhaft ist, weil dadurch das Begehren des anderen hervorgerufen wird (K. 2 p. 4: Daß du durch deinen Putz bewirkt hast, daß ein Weib von Begierde zu dir ergriffen wurde. Denn du hast sie zu einer gemacht, die solches um deinetwillen betroffen hat, daß sie (nämlich) mit ihrer Begierde die Ehe brechen wollte. Begierde ...

[Ulan]

That Text also needs some work regarding the German. It has some parts that don't make sense, for instance the last word in the Romans sentence (wrong word or omission of a line?), or "... wird vorzüglich deutlich in Habgier werden zurückgeführt auf..." which is a clear omission.

[Stephan Huller]

Using Google Book when it is only showing bits and pieces of an obscure book (as I am doing now) is like putting together a massive jigsaw puzzle. I have more soccer practice to attend but here is where the reconstruction is at now (be aware that for most of this I can't even see the actual pages from the book:


Frauen. und. verbotenen. Speisen. Durch die Übersetzung mit eni(k)|j.Eiv wird zwar nicht für das 10. Gebot, wohl aber für das 9. etwas Neues geschaffen

6,25b lautete im MT: Und nicht soll sie dich fangen mit ihren Blicken; LXX übersetzt: u.T]8e <juvap7rao^i; &7ro t!j$ aij-rij? ßXt<päpcov. In diesen Hinzufügungen und Veränderungen gegenüber dem Hebr wird bereits in LXX jene Tendenz sichtbar, die schon das Anblicken der Frau für den Beginn des Vergehens hält. Vgl. auch Mi 2,2 LXX; Sus 8 (186vtes... £7ttÄu(jtT]<javTc<;) ; Dan 11,37 LXX (tv imOufiiq; Yuvaixos); Wiedergabe des 10. Gebotes in 4Mkk2,5f (V. 6 dann: |rJ) 47riftu(ietv) ie Begierde selbst ist durch das Gesetz verboten. Dabei ist die Geschlechtslust eine seelische Begierde, und die nach Speisen, welche durch das Gesetz verboten sind, eine leibliche : ebenso Philo Decal 51 ; Heres 173 (u.oix<tac, 96vou, xXorrijc, <J/eu8o|i.apTupicäv, e7utk>(j.iöW) Decal 142 (£ni<h)|ieiv äTtayopeüei) 151.173; Spec Leg IV.84 (Begierde Quelle von Vergehen gegen das 5.-8. Dekaloggebot) ; nach Decal 51 ; Spec Leg IV 85 ist sie das äpxexaxov 7r±»o<;. Wie in 4 Mkk so sind auch bei Philo die verbotenen Speisen dem 10. Gebot zugeordnet (Spec Leg IV.96-125). Das Vergehen gegen das Gut des Nächsten tritt bei Philos Auslegung völlig zurück und wird nur in Decal 152 und im Katalog Spec Leg IV.84 kurz genannt.


Dekaloginschriften). Der hellenistische Grundsatz von der tm^uxln als der Quelle aller Übel findet sich auch in der Moses Apk § 19: £7u&uu.Ca yip iofiv y.zfxXr, 7rdcoT)s dtixccp-rlzc (sentenzartiger Einschub durch Stichwortverbindung) ; ebenso am Schluß einer dekalogartigen Reihe (6.7.6.) in der Abraham Apk („Ich sah daselbst die Begierde und in ihrer Hand das Haupt einer jeden Übertretung"). Diese zentrale Bedeutung der C7ci&uu.(<x macht das 10. Gebot für das hellenistische Judentum zu einem Zentralgebot, da mit der „Begierde" eben auch alle anderen Gebote übertreten sind . Das wird beispielhaft deutlich in Rom 7,7, wonach Pls (wie Adam) eben dieses Gebot (oüx fm<k>jd)<m<;) übertrat und damit die „Gesamtheit" der Sünde ließ. Diese Auslegung des 10. Gebotes wird vorzüglich deutlich in wird vorzüglich deutlich in 1 Thess 4,4-6 : Die Warnungen vor Unzucht und

Habgier werden zurückgeführt auf die Warnung: \i)) tv n&bti tm&upla;. Denn das sei ein Kennzeichen der Heiden. Obwohl im Kontext lediglich davon die Rede ist, daß Unzucht vermieden werden soll (vgl. V. 4.7 f), zieht die Nennung der Begierde sogleich auch den Hinweis auf Habsucht nach sich. Die Verbindung von Begierde und Ehebruch findet sich auch in Pistis Sophia K. 140 (Übs. Till 240,3). Auf Speisen und Frauen beziehen sich auch die Begierden in Herrn Mand VI, II, 5; nach Herrn Mand XII, 1,3-2,1 bringt Tod die Begierde nach anderer Frau, anderem Mann, nach Reichtum oder Speisen1. In syr Didask ist die Deutung des Begehrens schon so weit vorangeschritten, daß schon sich zu schmücken sündhaft ist, weil dadurch das Begehren des anderen hervorgerufen wird (K. 2 p. 4: Daß du durch deinen Putz bewirkt hast, daß ein Weib von Begierde zu dir ergriffen wurde. Denn du hast sie zu einer gemacht, die solches um deinetwillen betroffen hat, daß sie (nämlich) mit ihrer Begierde die Ehe brechen wollte. Begierde ...



Stehlen (7.) und Begehren (10.) des Gutes des Nächsten. - Die ursprüngliche Folge dagegen lautete: Ehebruch- Mannesraub-Erstreben des Hauses (9.) und der Frau (10.). Mit der vorangehenden, mit dem 5. Gebot beginnenden Reihe haben das 9. und 10. Gebot die Form gemeinsam sowie die inhaltliche Eigenart, daß es sich um Vergehen gegen den Nächsten handelt. Aber auch das Merkmal, das wir als einen Grund für die Zusammenfügung des 5. bis 8. Gebotes erkannten, die mangelnde Aufweisbar- keit der Schuld, ist hier gegeben. Denn durch Tön und auch durch mx ist ein Bereich angesprochen, in dem es noch nicht zur Ausführung der Tat gekommen ist, wohl aber bald kommen wird. In beiden Prohibitiven wird verboten, etwas durch sein Tun zu erstreben. Nicht der Raub selbst ist genannt, sondern jene Vorstufen, bei denen man die böse Absicht, zu deren Verwirklichung sie dienen, noch nicht erkennen kann. Das Tun das die Vorbereitung einer unrechtmäßigen Besitzaneignung ist, wird hier betroffen. "Tan bezeichnet genau jenes Tun, das als „Erstreben" im Vollsinn des Wortes selbst noch nicht als absichtlich schuldhaft ...

Clericus, Mosis prophetae libri, Amsterdam 1710, zu Ex 20,17: „Ne prae cupiditate uxorum aut rem alienam ullam malis artibus tuam facere nititor"; zu Ex 34,24: „Non de sola cupiditate intra animum latente sed de ipsa rei cupitae in- vasione". Traditionen der Auslegung a) Die Zurückführung auf Begierde überhaupt, besonders Die beiden Verbote des Begehrens 345.

Durch die Übersetzung mit eni(k)|j.Eiv wird zwar nicht für das 10.

Gebot, wohl aber für das 9. etwas Neues geschaffen : Schon das Begehren nach dem Weib des Nächsten wird jetzt im Dekalog verboten, eine Tendenz, die auch in Prov6,25

... Gebot in Rom 13,9 (dem entspricht die Verkürzung nur auf den Prohibitiv in den samaritan.


before somewhere

[Stephan Huller]

Using Google Chrome I get more information about the page. Apparently p. 346 looks like this

Traditionen der Auslegung

a) Die Zurückführung auf Begierde überhaupt, besonders auf die nach Frauen und verbotenen Speisen:

Durch die Übersetzung ἐπιθυμεῖν wird zwar nicht für das 10. Gebot, wohl aber für das 9. etwas Neues geschaffen : Schon das Begehren nach dem Weib des Nächsten wird jetzt im Dekalog verboten, eine Tendenz, die auch in Prov6,25 schon deutlich geworden war: dort übersetzt LXX: μή σε νικήσῃ κάλλους ἐπιθυμία und fügt gegen MT hinzu : μηδὲ ἀγρευθῇς σοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς ; auch 6,24 wurde verändert; statt Weib des Nächsten heißt es dort: ἀπὸ γυναικὸς ὑπάνδρου (so auch V. 29). 6,25b lautete im MT: Und nicht soll sie dich fangen mit ihren Blicken; LXX übersetzt: μηδὲ συναρπασθῇς ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῆς βλεφάρων. In diesen Hinzufügungen und Veränderungen gegenüber dem Hebr wird bereits in LXX jene Tendenz sichtbar, die schon das Anblicken der Frau für den Beginn des Vergehens hält. Vgl. auch Mi 2,2 LXX; Sus 8 (οὗτοι ἰδόντες γυναῖκα ἀστείαν τῷ εἴδει γυναῖκα ἀδελφοῦ αὐτῶν ἐκ τῶν υἱῶν ισραηλ ὄνομα σουσανναν θυγατέρα χελκιου γυναῖκα ιωακιμ περιπατοῦσαν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς τὸ δειλινὸν καὶ ἐπιθυμήσαντες αὐτῆς) ; Dan 11,37 LXX (ἐπὶ ἐπιθυμίαν γυναικῶν); Wiedergabe des 10. Gebotes in 4Mkk 2,5f (V. 6 dann: μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν) : Die Begierde selbst ist durch das Gesetz verboten. Dabei ist die Geschlechtslust eine seelische Begierde, und die nach Speisen, welche durch das Gesetz verboten sind, eine leibliche : ebenso Philo Decal 51 ; Heres 173 (μοιχείας, φόνου , κλοπἢς, ψευδομαρτυριῶν, ἐπιθυμιῶν) Decal 142 (ἐπιθυμεῖν άπαγορεύει ) 151.173; Spec Leg IV.84 (Begierde Quelle von Vergehen gegen das 5.-8. Dekaloggebot) ; nach Decal 51 ; Spec Leg IV 85 ist sie das ἀρχέκακὸν πάθος. Wie in 4 Mkk so sind auch bei Philo die verbotenen Speisen dem 10. Gebot zugeordnet (Spec Leg IV.96-125). Das Vergehen gegen das Gut des Nächsten tritt bei Philos Auslegung völlig zurück und wird nur in Decal 152 und im Katalog Spec Leg IV.84 kurz genannt.