Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

When Paul (and presumably the Marcionite recension of the NT) makes reference to the short form of the tenth commandment - 'οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, 'do not lust' - we open the door to the very justification of the ascetic ideal in Christianity dating back to Moses. Let's not forget that when Moses prepared himself to meet Jesus (or 'God' in the Jewish tradition) he abstained from sex for forty days (the rabbinic lore even has Moses' wife complain about this situation). The example of Moses's abstinence is repeatedly cited by early Christian monastic writers but only Clement and the Marcionites emphasized the short form of the tenth commandment which brings up an interestingly dilemma (aside from the whole question of the falsification of the gospel and related literature cmp. Matt 5:27).

Was Paul shortening the tenth commandment on his own authority - i.e. to change what Jesus (or 'God' in the Jewish tradition) commanded the Israelites? In other words, was Paul working from a text of the Pentateuch pretty much like ours or at least the LXX and he 'cut out' the reference to the specific things that men shouldn't lust for or - as I suspect - was his reference point something other than the text of the Pentateuch? Was there, as the rabbinic tradition suggests, a replica or perhaps what was claimed to be the original tablets of Moses where the commandments (or 'utterances' according to the Hebrew tradition) were spelled out for the nation of Israel and on those tablets the commandments were represented in short form - i.e. because of limited space, effect or perhaps because of a tradition that the actual tablets only preserved the short form?

In other words, is Paul's citation of the ten commandments yet another example of his antinomian (= specifically the Torah attributed to Moses not the Law given to Moses by God which was 'good') POV?

In contradistinction to the first nine commandments, which concern objective actions, the tenth is viewed as treating a subjective offense of mind, will, feeling, emotion, or attitude. As Harrelson puts it, "no lusting after the lifestyle or goods of others." Such an understanding is at least as old as the translators of the Septuagint. Twice in Exod 20:17 and once in Deut 5:21, the Hebrew uses hamad, usually translated as "covet." Only once in the Hebrew of Deut 5:2 1 does hit'awwah ("to desire") occur, and even there the Samaritan Pentateuch reads hamad. The Greek translators, however, rendered all four verbs with epithymeo, "to desire, long for." Paul stood solidly in this tradition — his quotation of the commandment in Rom 7:7 and 13:9 expresses no object of the coveting. http://books.google.com/books?id=87hQ2A ... 22&f=false

The two citations from Clement's variant gospel are:

Jesus said "You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust.’"

and:

"thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery."

My guess is that the two followed one another:

Jesus said "You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery’"

Compare Matt 5:27 - supposedly the 'Jewish gospel' (bullshit):

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew betrays itself to be the heretical gospel with key material expunged from it. Notice (a) the specific short form of the tenth commandment is removed (thus making Paul no longer citing the gospel) and (b) that the long form of the commandment is hinted at with the reference to "woman." The original apostle/evangelist wanted to cut out 'lust' for anything - lust or desire as such and had something other than the text of the Pentateuch in mind.

More citations from Clement:

At this point, I think that I ought not to leave on one side without comment the fact that the Apostle preaches the same God whether through the Law, the prophets, or the gospel. For in his letter to the Romans he attributes to the Law the words "You shall not lust" which in fact appear in the text of the gospel. He does so in the knowledge that it is one single person who makes his decrees through the Law and the prophets, and is the subject of the gospel’s proclamation. He says, "What shall we say? Is the Law sin? Of course not. But I did not know sin except through the Law. I did not know lust, except that the Law said, ‘You shall not lust.' [Stromata 3.76.1,2]

It is on this account, as appears to me, that the Instructor does not permit us to give utterance to aught unseemly, fortifying us at an early stage against licentiousness. For He is admirable always at cutting out the roots of sins, such as, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," by "Thou shalt not lust." For adultery is the fruit of lust, which is the evil root. And so likewise also in this instance the Instructor censures licence in names, and thus cuts off the licentious intercourse of excess. For licence in names produces the desire of being indecorous in conduct; and the observance of modesty in names is a training in resistance to lasciviousness. We have shown in a more exhaustive treatise, that neither in the names nor in the members to which appellations not in common use are applied, is there the designation of what is really obscene. [Paedagogue 2.6]

And what are the laws? "Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not seduce boys; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; thou shalt love the Lord thy God." And the complements of these are those laws. of reason and words of sanctity which are inscribed on men's hearts: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; to him who strikes thee on the cheek, present also the other;" "thou shalt not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery." How much better, therefore, is it for men from the beginning not to wish to desire things forbidden, than to obtain their desires! [Exhortation 10]

What we have before us is proof that it isn't just 'the Marcionites' but Clement of Alexandria too who had a gospel which betrayed Paul's knowledge of its contents and - perhaps more importantly - that the entire Catholic New Testament canon (not just 'Luke' and the 'letters of Paul') which were actively manipulated and exploited to 'neutralize' this original understanding of who Jesus was and what he came to teach the world (or specifically Jews and Jewish proselytes).

Is it too much to suppose by Jesus's (= the God in the burning bush and fire on Sinai's) statement:

Jesus said "You have heard the injunction of the Law. ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ I say, ‘You shall not lust, for by lust alone thou hast committed adultery’"

That the tenth commandment is presented by Paul (or 'the original gospel writer') as being tenth (i.e. last) of ten commandments because it summed up all the other commandments? Was Jesus then in the gospel 'destroying' the Law (= the ten commandments) or rather merely simplifying things?

He was clearly destroying and 'against' the Law established by Moses but not - as many have noted - the ten commandments that came written by a divine finger with fire in the fire of Sinai. This is undoubtedly where some of the confusion arose. There were two Torahs in Israel at the time:

But when the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, who had not studied sufficiently [due to volatile conditions], increased in number, there were so many differences of opinion in Israel that the Torah became as two Torahs. [Sanhedrin 88b]

Sanhedrin 7 - http://books.google.com/books?id=_E632Z ... 22&f=false

But was this statement merely describing 'conflicting' interpretation of one Torah or was there the idea - as Heschel would suggest - of two Torahs divided between 'the ten commandments' (which the heretics said was the heavenly Torah) and the Torah of Moses which - to use the language of Paul - was the Torah according to man, on the authority of a man or the human earthly Torah? Of course this is the right answer.

At this point, I think that I ought not to leave on one side without comment the fact that the Apostle preaches the same God whether through the Law, the prophets, or the gospel. For in his letter to the Romans he attributes to the Law the words "You shall not lust" which in fact appear in the text of the gospel. He does so in the knowledge that it is one single person who makes his decrees through the Law and the prophets, and is the subject of the gospel’s proclamation. He says, "What shall we say? Is the Law sin? Of course not. But I did not know sin except through the Law. I did not know lust, except that the Law said, ‘You shall not lust.’" If the heretics who assail the creator suppose that Paul was speaking against him in the words that follow: "I know that nothing good lodges in me, in my flesh, that is to say," they had better read the words which precede and come after these. He has just said, "Sin lodges in me," which makes it appropriate to go on to, "Nothing good lodges in my flesh."

On top of this he continues, "If I act contrary to my will, the effect is not mine but the effect of sin lodging in me," which, he says, "is at war with" God’s "Law and my own reason and takes me prisoner under the Law of sin which is in my very bones. What a wretched man I am. Who will rescue me from this body which is doomed to death?" Once again, since he never remotely gets tired of doing good, he does not hesitate to add, "The Law of the Spirit has freed me from the Law of sin and death," since through his Son "God has pronounced judgment upon sin in the flesh so that the Law’s ordinance might find fulfillment in us, whose lives are governed by the Spirit not by the flesh." In addition to all this, he makes what he has already said even clearer by asserting at the top of his voice, "The body is a dead thing because of sin," showing that if it is not the soul’s temple it remains the soul’s tomb. When it is consecrated to God, he is going to continue, "the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lodges in you, and he will give life even to your mortal bodies through his indwelling Spirit."

So again he attacks the hedonists and adds, "The object of the flesh is death, since those whose lives are governed by the flesh follow the flesh in their objectives; and the object of the flesh is hostility to God, for it is not subject to God’s Law. Those who live on the level of flesh cannot please God" should not be understood as some people lay down, but as I have already argued. (2) Then in distinction from these people, he addresses the Church. "You are not living by the flesh but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God is dwelling in you. Anyone without Christ’s Spirit is not of him. But if Christ is in you, then your body is a dead thing because of sin, but theSpirit is life through righteousness. (3) So, brothers, we are in debt. Not to the flesh, to follow it in our lives; for if you follow the flesh in the way you live, you are on the way to death. But if by the Spirit you put to death the practices of the body, you will live. For all who are guided by God’s Spirit are sons of God." (4) He goes on to speak against the high birth and freedom which the heretics adduce so abominably as they vaunt their licentiousness. "You have not received a spirit of slavery to drive you once again towards fear. You have received a Spirit that makes us sons and enables us to cry out, ‘Abba,’ ‘Father.’" 298 (5) That is to say, we have received the Spirit to enable us to know the one to whom we pray, our real Father, the one and only Father of all that is, the one who like a Father educates us for salvation and does away with fear. [Strom 3.76f]

Tertullian doesn't even mention the reference in Against Marcion:

For he says that "we are dead to the law." It may be contended that Christ's body is indeed a body, but not exactly flesh. Now, whatever may be the substance, since he mentions "the body of Christ," whom he immediately after states to have been "raised from the dead," none other body can be understood than that of the flesh, in respect of which the law was called (the law) of death. But, behold, he bears testimony to the law, and excuses it on the ground of sin: "What shall we say, therefore? Is the law sin? God forbid." Fie on you, Marcion. "God forbid!" (See how) the apostle recoils from all impeachment of the law. I, however, have no acquaintance with sin except through the law. But how high an encomium of the law (do we obtain) from this fact, that by it there comes to light the latent presence of sin! It was not the law, therefore, which led me astray, but "sin, taking occasion by the commandment."

Someone has actually written a book on Philo's treatment of the Tenth Commandment - http://books.google.com/books?id=G9S1CG ... 22&f=false

I notice right at the beginning of the book that the 'short form' of the Tenth Commandment is also shared by Philo:

Philo's Exposition of the Tenth Commandment

Decal. 142-53 and Spec. 4.78b—131 contain Philo's commentary on the Tenth Commandment, which he reads as a two-word prohibition, οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις Phiilo abbreviates the Septuagint version, which lists various objects of desire: a neighbor's wife, house, field, etc. Although he never explains or justifies this abbreviation, it makes good sense in light of his overall treatment of the Ten Commandments, especially his view of the last five as a pentad of basic prohibitions governing human affairs. Superficially, the abbreviation accomplishes a stylistic leveling, bringing the Tenth Commandment into line with the four other basic prohibitions: οὐ μοιχεύσεις, οὐ κλέψεις, οὐ φονεύσεις, and οὐ ψευδομαρτυρήσεις the last of which is itself an abbreviation of the Ninth Commandment?' More importantly, however, a specific formulation of the Tenth Commandment would contradict Philo's claim that the Commandments are comprehensive, generic summaries—or, as with οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, generic prohibitions. In his system of of thought, limiting the scope of the Tenth Commandment to specific objects would blur the distinction between genus and species. Rather than a summary, the Commandment would read more like a short list of “particular laws. [p. 12 - 13]

I have to get to work but that is very interesting. I didn't know that. Paul and Philo engage in the same practice suggesting an extremely early tradition. I still say, this is likely reflective of a standing monument somewhere - or 'somwheres' (i.e. in many Jewish places).

I don't know if anyone needs me to cite the rabbinic evidence that a (destroyed) monument of the ten commandments existed in the temple. As it stands now it is said that the a display with a broken tablet existed in Jerusalem. But this is stupid. Could it be a tradition that there was a monument of the ten commandments which was slightly altered with the Biblical lens of God's unhappiness with Israel's iniquity? I think so.

Then the question comes if such a monument existed and acted as the basis for the short form of the ninth and tenth commandments in Philo (a similar monument perhaps in Alexandria) and Paul (in Jerusalem?) it would have been uncomfortable to etch in the long form of the commandments. Look how Americans attempt the feat:

In 4 Maccabees 2.5—6, the abbreviation of the tenth commandment occurs in two stages. The author initially cites it in the shortened form, “You shall not desire the wife of your neighbour. or anything that belongs to your neighbour”. He then abbreviates further as he attempts to show that the commandment is the source of his thesis that reason is master of the passions: “And since the law has told us not to desire I could prove to you all the more that reason is able to control desires.” Philo's discussion of the tenth commandment is exclusively concerned with desire as such (dec. 142—53). 15. Paul probably takes over from the LXX rendering the assumption that sexual desire for an illicit object is paradigmatic of all prohibited desire. This scriptural background makes it unnecessary to find here a reference to Adam, as in D. Boyarin's fanciful haggadic reading. According to Boyarin, “the Torah has exacerbated the plight of Adamic humanity because of one provision it contains”. that is. “the command to procreate. and the desire it produces in the members” (A Radical Jew, p. 159). This is the Pauline “other law”, the “law of sin that is in my members" (Rom.7.23). over against which stands the prohibition of the forbidden fruit (Gen.2.17), understood as a prohibition of sexual desire (Rom.7.7). [Frances Watson, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith p. 362]

But these dummies don't see the forest from the trees. Yes Paul speaks of 'another law' but - and now I think I have finally closed in on the solution - the commandment 'do not lust' cited in the short form in the gospel and Paul is the one that must have been attested as a monument with the ninth and tenth commandments in 'short form' ('short' relative to the Torah which pretended to be from Moses but everyone knew was really from Ezra). The 'other law' of sin is the Torah.

I know white people think this is crazy but the rabbinic literature attests that the minim juxtaposed the ten commandments (which came from the word of God) from the Torah (which came from the authority of Moses). The missing link was the assumption that there existed monuments displaying the short form thus 'reifying' the abstract concept of the ten commandments as a rival law to the Torah. Now I think it is just a matter of tracking down references to this monument/these monuments in antiquity.

4 Maccabees:

It is for this reason, certainly, that the temperate Joseph is praised, because by mental effort he overcame sexual desire.
[3] For when he was young and in his prime for intercourse, by his reason he nullified the frenzy of the passions.
[4] Not only is reason proved to rule over the frenzied urge of sexual desire, but also over every desire.
[5] Thus the law says, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife...or anything that is your neighbor's."
[6] In fact, since the law has told us 'do not covet', I could prove to you all the more that reason is able to control desires.
Just so it is with the emotions that hinder one from justice.

[7] Otherwise how could it be that someone who is habitually a solitary gormandizer, a glutton, or even a drunkard can learn a better way, unless reason is clearly lord of the emotions?
[8] Thus, as soon as a man adopts a way of life in accordance with the law, even though he is a lover of money, he is forced to act contrary to his natural ways and to lend without interest to the needy and to cancel the debt when the seventh year arrives.
[9] If one is greedy, he is ruled by the law through his reason so that he neither gleans his harvest nor gathers the last grapes from the vineyard.
In all other matters we can recognize that reason rules the emotions.

[10] For the law prevails even over affection for parents, so that virtue is not abandoned for their sakes.
[11] It is superior to love for one's wife, so that one rebukes her when she breaks the law.
[12] It takes precedence over love for children, so that one punishes them for misdeeds.
[13] It is sovereign over the relationship of friends, so that one rebukes friends when they act wickedly.
[14] Do not consider it paradoxical when reason, through the law, can prevail even over enmity. The fruit trees of the enemy are not cut down, but one preserves the property of enemies from the destroyers and helps raise up what has fallen.
[15]
It is evident that reason rules even the more violent emotions: lust for power, vainglory, boasting, arrogance, and malice.

[16] For the temperate mind repels all these malicious emotions, just as it repels anger -- for it is sovereign over even this.
[17] When Moses was angry with Dathan and Abiram he did nothing against them in anger, but controlled his anger by reason.
[18] For, as I have said, the temperate mind is able to get the better of the emotions, to correct some, and to render others powerless.
[19] Why else did Jacob, our most wise father, censure the households of Simeon and Levi for their irrational slaughter of the entire tribe of the Shechemites, saying, "Cursed be their anger"?
[20] For if reason could not control anger, he would not have spoken thus.
[21] Now when God fashioned man, he planted in him emotions and inclinations,
[22] but at the same time he enthroned the mind among the senses as a sacred governor over them all.
[23] To the mind he gave the law; and one who lives subject to this will rule a kingdom that is temperate, just, good, and courageous.
[24]
How is it then, one might say, that if reason is master of the emotions, it does not control forgetfulness and ignorance

That's the Marcionite objection to 'the Law' which is consistently misrepresented by the Church Fathers and the boneheaded unimaginative modern scholarship that follows like lapdogs. The problem was Moses. Moses didn't have the authority of God who was Jesus who came set things right after Israel 'fell into sin' by following the Torah rather than the ten utterances he gave to Israel through Moses.