Kill vs. Murder

[Laura]

לא תרצח

In the Ten Commandments, there seem to be varying translations of 'Do not kill' vs. 'Do not murder'. Looking online didn't help much, so what is the literal translation of this? Apparently רצח is the hebrew word for murder, and this is what is used in the hebrew I found for the Ten Commandments above, so why do some versions use the word kill instead?

[Jen]

Well, when you asked, I decided to check out the original Greek as well as the Hebrew. Admittedly, my knowledge of Greek is severely limited. The Hebrew word, תרצח, is very clearly an imperative form of the verb for murder. In the Greek, the word φονεύσεις is also translated as murder from what I understand.

Biblical translations often come upon several obstacles when they are written. Translations are subject to the translators' personal views. They are subject to colloquialisms contemporary to the translators. And, in the specific case of the Bible, they are very subject to the amplification or revision of the text to make things cover a wider range of ideas than the original text might have intended. And even these tendencies do not take into account the difficulties inherent in translating any ancient language into a more modern one.

I can hypothesize several reasons for the discrepancy between the original language of the verse (you shall not murder) and the oft-used inexact translation (you shall not kill). First, one must consider that the most widely disseminated version of the Bible was the King James Version. This version of the Bible translates the verse as "Thou shalt not kill." This translation was begun in 1604 and published in 1611 by the Church of England. It was intended to be read in Churches; and, as were most works at the time, was more intended for learned clergy than for laity. The clergy were likely expected to have some knowledge of the original language of the texts being translated. I would hypothesize that the translators at the time saw the words kill and murder as being able to be used interchangeably. Or, if not, that the slight difference in connotation was a method of inserting the Church's values into the Bible.

Given that Christianity tends to have rather pacifistic values (that is, if you throw out Augustine's work on establishing the just war tradition in the 4th and 5th centuries, CE), widening the scope of the verb to killing in general would make sense. The acts of killing and murder are the same... the only difference between the two is the intention with which the act is done. And, as definitions of sin in Christianity at the time tended to focus more on action than on intention, the discrepancy makes sense.

Most, more modern, translations have rectified the discrepancy between the English and the original Hebrew of the text. However, due to the wide dissemination and long-standing authority of the King James translation, most people are familiar with this version of the text.

I think this translation raises an interesting theological question. Do actions matter more than intention? Or do intentions matter more than actions? Many different traditions take many different stances on this matter. In fact, there is a whole spectrum of thought regarding whether intention or actual action is more important in governing one's actions.

[David]

Intention, in my opinion, always matters more than action for intention leads to action.

Belief -> Desire/Intent -> Action -> Feeling

[Laura]

So then is it right that generally (I think) prisoners will spend longer in jail for killing someone than having the intention to do so but were stopped?

I will come up with some more reply later but it's pretty early and anything I came up with now would not be particularly cohesive. -.-


EDIT: Attempted murder, that's the phrase I was trying to think of! Said I was tired

[David]

It is God's place to judge intention. Man can only judge what he can see, action.

The US has a charge called "Attempted Murder" and it has its own repercussions.

Allowing men to judge intention would become unjust and biased.

[Jen]

But we do attempt to judge intent in our legal system. In fact, the main difference between the different types of homicide is intent. We prove intention by gauging one's actions. It is certainly possible for a person to act with intent and for that intent to be recognizable. In cases where intent is difficult to prove, we often charge the defendant with manslaughter rather than murder.

In fact, part of the charge of attempted murder is the necessity for the prosecution to prove the defendant's intention to commit said murder. So yes, we do judge intent in this society. Most crimes consist of both intent and action. Though, some, such as vehicular manslaughter (where the death caused is unintentional), are action alone.

[David]

Right. I was imagining punishments against pure intention with no action. Only an extreme but it is easier to see.