Is it possible that an English translation transformed the Ten Commandments?
The answer to these questions suggests that a not so accurate translation significantly impacted theology and contemporary beliefs.
To understand how this happened, the initial inquiry is the Hebrew Bible.
Before doing so, an understanding of how the Hebrew phrase for the Ten Commandments is indicated.
Lost In Reverse Translation
The phrase The Ten Commandments, to the surprise of many, is not found in either the Old or New Testament. The Old Testament’s Hebrew -with a smattering the Aramaic- does not contain those words; neither does the New Testament’s Greek.
To construct the phrase, the Hebrew word for ten- eser– would be combined with the word for commandment- mitzvah. These words would likely include some modifications, i.e. Mitzvah would become the plural- Mitzvot.
Since the phrase is quite simple to construct, why is it absent from the Hebrew Bible?
To answer this question, one can look towards scriptural passages in which one would expect the phraseology would be employed. Thus, Teruma’s Haftarah- an extra-Pentateuchal supplemental reading- will assist with the initial answer.
A brief explanation of Teruma is required to understand the Haftarah.
Teruma
The Tabernacle’s design is Torah Portion Teruma‘s subject matter. See Exodus 25:9. The Tabernacle was the holy place at which the Lord would take residence. See Exodus 25:8.
The Ark of the Testimony was located there. Exodus 26:33. Within the Ark, the Tablets- the Ten Commandments- were placed. See Deuteronomy 10:5.
After the Israelite Kingdom was established, the Ark of Testimony was eventually moved to Jerusalem. There, King Solomon constructed the Temple were the Ark would take up permanent residence.
Teruma’s Haftarah
The Teruma Haftarah-from the Book of Kings- details King Solomon’s completing constructing the Jerusalem Temple.
During the process, Solomon had a divine encounter.
The word of the Lord came to Solomon saying, ‘This Temple that you build- if you follow My Decrees, perform My statutes, and observe all My Commandments, to follow them, I shall uphold My word with you that I spoke to David your father, and I shall dwell among the Children of Israel, and I shall not foresake My people Israel.'” 1 Kings 6 11-13.
In this game-changing event, the Lord’s directions are about decrees, statutes and commandments. With respect to commandments, the phraseology is about the totality of the commandments.
Logically, the all inclusive phrase requires no specific reference to any particular 10 of the Torah’s 613 commandments.
In essence, the passage speaks of the entire divinely delivered Israelite legal corpus. Picking and choosing, apparently, was not an option.
Given this, it is worthy to venture to other events where the Ten Commandments’ phrase should have been used- Mt. Sinai.
Sinai Speaks
Immediately before the Ten Commandments were articulated to the Children of Israel at Mt. Sinai, the Torah’s narrator indicates that He (The Lord) said “all these words.” Exodus 20:1.
The Hebrew was Kol Ha D’varim [all the words.]
Again, as with Teruma’s Haftarah passage, there is no mention of any specific group of commandments; rather, words were mentioned.
Beyond the Commandments’ oral rendition at Mt. Sinai, there was their physical delivery as well. An Exodus passage tells of Moses setting the words in stone.
When Matters Were Set In Stone
The original Ten Commandments’ labeling comes at Mt. Sinai when Moses sculpted them in stone.
The following passage described the divine interaction:
“And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write these words for yourself, because I’ve made a covenant with you and with Israel based on these words.” Exodus 34:27.
Moses wrote the items on the tablet, the words of the covenant. Exodus 34:28.
[Note: In these passages, the Hebrew words D’varim and Brit are used. Mitzvah or Mitzvot is not. Brit means covenant. ]
The narrator describes the words in Hebrew as the aseret haddebarim. Exodus 34:28.
Richard Elliott Friedman’s English Torah translation however refers to those words as the Ten Commandments.
In his Commentary, he notes that the Hebrew aseret haddebarim literally means the ten things. See Commentary at P. 293. [Note: Other alternative translations are “words” or “matters.”]
Professor Friedman’s translation’s employment of “The Ten Commandments” is not unusual. Most English translations do the same.
Likely, the employment of the phrase- the Ten Commandment- is done for the modern reader’s edification. Arguably, it wouldn’t be satisfying to read the Torah (in translation) without seeing the phrase The Ten Commandments. It would be like not being able to watch Cecil B. DeMille’s The Ten Commandments around Passover or Easter time; it just can’t happen.
Logic
The Torah, despite not delivering the desired phrase, does maintain an internal logic and consistency. When announced, the Ten Commandments were described in Hebrew as D’varim. When set in stone, they were described the same.
The true question is whether the ancient readers understood the Ten Commandments as a particular commandments’ grouping. Or, did they simply consider them “the ten things.” If that was the case, then how did the phrase The Ten Commandments become so ubiquitous?
It should be noted that during Hellenism, it was acknowledged; Philo, in his writing, penned an essay on the topic.
Surprisingly, post-Torah, there are no Hebrew Bible references to the Ten Commandments. Rather, the Prophets and others will refer to various laws and matters contained within the Ten Commandments.
In essence, individuals portrayed in scripture did not assign the label upon them. Most likely, the reference to the covenant served as a sufficient descriptor.
Thus, it was sometime after the Hebrew Bible’s canonization when terminology was introduced.
Conceived In Translation
The expansion of the Hebrew Bible’s descriptive language took off with the Greek translation of the Bible- the Septuagint.
As a result new phrases relating to the “ten words” would emerge based upon translation.
The phrase the ten words/matters/things became the dekalogos. Eventually, in Latin translation, it became the decalogus. Thus, the Ten Commandments eventually gained the new name, the Decalogue.
Eventually, there were English translations.
In the Geneva English translation of the Bible, published in 1560, the term The Ten Commandments was used. Previous English translations- Tyndale and Coverdale- used the term ten verses.
From the Geneva Bible, the phrase carried over into other popular English translations such as the King James’ Bible.
Given that many individuals read a bible translation, the Ten Commandments, as a phrase, became pseudo-authoritative. By that, individuals are taken aback by the thought that the wording is not within the original Hebrew scripture.
A Theological Twist of Sorts
The Ten Commandments phraseology is important. Irrespective of the translator’s motivation, linguistically it created distance between the Decalogue from the Torah’s other 603 commandments.
This distance presents as a departure from the Lord’s all inclusive directions to Solomon.
In the end, the translation causes one to focus on the ten to the exclusion of the remainder.
The Ten Commandments vs. The Covenant
The statement “The Ten Commandments vs. The Covenant” on first glance, does not make sense. Aren’t they the same?
Arguably, they are not. the Decalogue’s transformation via translation into English arguably re-packaged the Ten Commandments. They became a Divine Individual Code of Conduct as opposed to the Divine Community Covenant.
With the Torah’s Covenant with the Children of Israel, the community commandment compliance was tied to national existentialism. It did not, however, abdicate the responsibilities the fulfillment of other Israelite law.
In contrast, the translation linguistically excised the Decalogue from the totality of the commandments. They become something independent. Free standing of sort.
The Lower Common Denominator
One can argue that the Ten Commandments represents the lowest common denominator of commandment observance. While intended as an existential line that signaled the jeopardizing of nationhood, it can also serve as an individual code of conduct.
The initial intent of the Community Covenant still makes an impression, however. Outside of a nation, it is asserted that when a community- en masse- abides by the commandments good things happen. Healthier cities, counties emerge. There are better places to live and raise children. Thus, the Decalogue compliance maintains a tremendous societal value.
The Horseshoe Effect?
Thus, the English Translation to The Ten Commandments created a horseshoe effect with respect to the commandments. Both existentially and with respect to community building, the Ten Commandments ultimately serve a dual a role. One deeply theological while the other in terms of an individual code of conduct.
For those practicing in orthodoxy, the Decalogue is part of a greater set of commandments. For others, the Ten Commandments may be the totality of laws which observed. At some point, both the observant and minimally observant meet in an intersection.
Conclusion
In sum, the English translation created The Ten Commandments transformed the Decalogue from a covenant to something quite different.
In essence, the language created shade between the Decalogue’s ten commandments and the other 306. With most individuals consuming the English translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Ten Commandments’ theology became a transformed.
The End Product?
The Ten Commandments’ problem is that it is not a complete solution to societal ills. It is an incomplete baseline. A number of Prophets recognized the deficiencies when they registered social criticism. They spoke of truth, justice and righteousness; the three fundamental rails which are connected, but not fully included, within the Decalogue
In essence, the Decalogue fails to address major societal matters. For instance, the health and welfare of both widows and orphans. Thus, the Decalogue -standing alone- is not a total solution; rather, it is foundational piece of the puzzle.
Be well!!
Please like, follow, comment or share
The Ten Commandments Project 
The fundamental restrictions of the Sinai brit.
The Torah Cohanim laws in ויקרא, encompass various aspects of Jewish life, particularly regarding sexual morality\ערבה, the tohor-tuma holiness Code, where this Book closes with the Blessing/Curse revelation of the k’vanna of the accepted Sinai brit. The concepts of tahor (purity) and tamei (impurity) – spirits within the YaTzir Tov\Ya Tzir Raw within the heart, herein defines the נמשל of the revelation of the Mishkan at Sinai. All Torah commandments subsumed under the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; the greatest Torah commandment of all Torah commandments – the first Sinai commandment. No Torah commandment has greater authority than the 1st Torah commandment at Sinai.
This crucial important understanding כלל, the overall spiritual and communal framework of Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach, פרט which defines this כלל. The mitzva of Moshiach no more applicable to Goyim any more than the observance of shabbat. The latter mitzva requires the ability to discern between מלאכה from עבודה. The NT Greek language, for example, does not discern any fundamental or even secondary distinction between these two completely different Hebrew verbs which the Greek NT translates as work. Hence the Xtian Man-God JeZeus did not grasp how to sanctify the time-oriented wisdom commandment NOT shabbat NOR moshiach. Consequently both the NT and Koran exist as false prophet theology which seeks to entice Israel to worship other Gods.
ויקרא יח — כ laws of Cohonim as applicable to Goyim who reject the revelation the Torah at Sinai as Mars lack of water compares to Earth covered by vast majority in water. Goyim outsiders cannot usurp the Hebrew T’NaCH simply by renaming it “Old Testament”. Dishonesty defines the Xtian bible from start to finish; the revelation of Torah judicial common law Sanhedrin mandate radically different from Goyim worship of their Gods who live in the Heavens above.
For example: The Goyim bible knows nothing of the oath sworn brit at Sh’Cem prior to the 7 year war to conquer Canaan. Goyim know nothing of how Torah defines the culture, customs, and practices which shape the identity of the Jewish people. Their ‘I am saved through JeZeus’ reflected in the post WWII ‘born again’ fad – completely oblivious to the church crimes (both Catholic & Protestant) that culminated in the Shoah European guilt. Actions have their consequences. 2000+ years of Xtian war crimes against Humanity by no means limited to the Jews alone.
Xtian faith exists only as mythology, especially after 2000+ years of failed 2nd coming “Good News”. Where was JeZeus during the Shoah? Church has no shame b/c its believers take no responsibility for their criminal behavior from generation to generation to generation — only evil and wickedness. Answer for the crimes of the Inquisition or the forced mass population transfers or the extermination of entire populations in the New World and across the Pacific Islands and Africa. Never has any Xtian country made religious war criminals stand trial. Post WWII the Church opened rat-lines to assist Nazis to flee from standing trial. And Poland initiated pogroms against Jews returning to reclaim title to their properties!
The 7 mitzvot bnai noach, an Aggadah within mesechta Sanhedrin addresses the type of Goy temporary resident known as Ger Toshav. By contrast mesechta Baba Kama addresses the 2nd type of Goy living within the borders of the oath sworn lands “brit” sworn as the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot and only to this chosen seed. Hence the Torah records that Moshe received command not to invade the lands of Esau!
Mesechta Baba Kama refers to the Goyim whom the king of Assyria settled in the captured 10 Tribe kingdom of Samaria/Israel. The Book of Ezra/Nehemiah refers to these people who converted out of ‘fear of lions’ as Shomronim – which the NT calls ‘Samaritans’. The Book of D’varim refers to both types of Goyim in the case of treif meat: its permitted to give this type of flesh as a present to the ger toshav or sell it to the “nacree”. The Talmud, multiple generations of sages, debated the status of the Nacreeim and reached the conclusion which excluded them as having any legal connection to Torah judicial justice laws. Why? The Samaritan forerunners of the Karaim and Xtians – one and all declared themselves the ‘NEW Israel’.
The Rambam held that the 7 mitzvot bnain Noach apply to all Goyim. Aggada makes a drosh/p’shat back to interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar based upon similar T’NaCH case/din mussar rulings. This prophetic mussar has the power when “woven” into halachic ritual observances to elevate a positive rabbinic mitzva into a Av tohor Torah time-oriented wisdom commandment. Confusing the private opinion by the Rambam, whom both the court of Rabbeinu Yona in Spain and the majority of the Baali Tosafot in France both condemned the Rambam’s statute halachic code and Guide Greek philosophy as a Torah abomination — based upon the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah wherein the P’rushim dedicated the korban of lights to only interpret the Written Torah with the logic of the Oral Torah. Greek deductive logic the blessing on Hanukkah recalls that the Greeks sought to cause Israel to forget the (Oral) Torah.
Assimilated Rambam from Spain worships the Universal God theologies which both the NT and Koran espouse. No Sanhedrin Court has jurisdiction to judge Capital Crimes cases outside the borders of the Torah defined oath sworn land inheritance of Canaan and as further defined within the expanded language of the Torah and clarified by Moshe Rabbeinu which requires expanded National territories include small Sanhedrin cities of refuge Capital Crimes courtrooms. Hence the Rambam notion of Universal 7 mitzvot applicable to all Goyim – an utter narishkeit as the NT dictate on the mitzva of Moshiach.
The Rambam “world to come” as pie in the sky as the NT false messiah. Goyim not under Torah law. Therefore just as Americans do not determine Russian strategic interests to invade a Ukraine threatening to join NATO – especially after Napoleon and Hitler both invaded Russia through the flat plains of the Ukraine – so too Goyim, not under the law, do not determine Torah commandments, specifically in the NT case – the commandment of Moshiach.
Torah common law stands the vision of “life in the word to come” based upon the Torah oath brit cut between the pieces wherein childless Avram swore and oath and in turn his local god El Shaddai swore an oath back to Avram. This concept of brit – totally alien to the Torah. Secondary sources like the NT or Koran do not supersede the Torah; anymore that Goyim who reject the Torah can qualify as ger tzeddik converts. The Pauline ‘graphed onto’ narishkeit equal to the Koran declaration of Yishmael bound upon the altar at the Akadah.
The seven Noahide laws are presented in Jewish sources as a universal moral code binding on all humanity (the “descendants of Noah”), independent of the Land of Israel or the Sanhedrin’s geographic jurisdiction for Jewish capital cases. False. Violation of any of these 7 laws by a ger toshav constitutes as a Capital Crime Case that only the Sanhedrin courts can adjudicate. One of the 7 mitzvot requires gere toshav to establish courts of law. The Talmud does not mandate any court ger toshav in Judea the authority to adjudicate any Capital Crime case. Rather ger toshav courts limited to Torts damages courts like Jewish Torts courts in g’lut.
Sanhedrin Capital Crimes courts inclusive of Small Sanhedrin courts in all cities of refuge as well as the Great Sanhedrin Court of 71, define the Torah mandated Federal Sanhedrin common law court system. The NaCree (language of the Torah)/Canaani (language of Baba Kama) refers strictly and only to despised refugee populations/Shomronim\Samaritans.
No Sanhedrin court can put a “Bnai Noach” living in London or Paris or Berlin or Moscow to death. Violation of any of the 7 mitzvot therefore strictly and only apply to gere toshav living within the judicial domain of Sanhedrin Capital Crime courtrooms. Makkot 9a illustrates distinctions: a ger toshav who unintentionally kills another ger toshav is exiled (treated somewhat like a Jew), while killing a Jew leads to execution without exile—handled under Jewish judicial frameworks in the Land. Only Sanhedrin court justices have the Torah mandate to judge and try Capital Crimes Cases. The courts of Gere Toshav temporary residents do not have greater authority than Jewish Torts courts within the borders of Judea.
The small Sanhedrin courts function as lower courts which permits appeal to the two Great Sanhedrin courts held within the Court of Hewn State within the Temple. Secondary sources of Talmudic scholarship made after the sealing of the T’NaCH, Mishna, Gemara, and Siddur exist as opinions. These secondary sources cannot over-ride nor negate sealed Primary sources. The Rambam statute halachic codes does just that, it equates his halachic posok rulings as if they stood upon their own merit. By stark and obvious contrast the Gemara halachot serve as precedent to interpret the language of the Mishna which that Gemara comments upon and nothing more. Herein separates T’NaCH\Talmudic common law from Roman & Rambam statute law.
Aggada does not determine halacha – except in the opinion of the Rambam. Quoting Genesis 9:9–17 does not amount to squat. It amounts to a dream which has no interpretation; a letter never opened and read. Sanhedrin 56a–57a addresses Gere Toshav – based upon the Book of D’varim which differentiates two types of Goyim: Ger Toshav vs. NaCreeim. The Talmud restricted to these to classifications of Goyim within the borders of the Oath sworn lands.
Sanhedrin 56–60, which treats these laws as pre‑Sinaitic and universal? Post Sinai revelation the Torah no longer perceives Torah as Universal/in the heavens above. תורה לא בשמים היא – represents a key fundamental of the revelation and acceptance by Israel of the Torah. The Book of בראשית does not over-ride the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, any more than can post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli Reshonim scholars can add to or subtract from the sealed Talmud.
Only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – to this very day. Torah common law post Reshonim opinions do not modify except to the limitations of the needs of that particular generations. Clearly the Dark Age social political and societal anarchy and chaos do not prevail today in any even near comparison to the darkest Ages of Xtian Europe under the Church Inquisition dictatorships.
Pre-Sinaitic Universal ethics defines the 2nd Sinai commandment. Therefore any attempt to interpret 7 mitzvot bnai noach out of its Talmudic restriction which limits it to gere toshav temporary residents invalidates the Torah precedent in D’varim which separates giving treif meats as a gift vs selling this treif flesh to a Na’cree. The Baali Tosafot common law commentary on Avodah Zarah 64b – ger toshav exists only when Yovel observed supports this strong restriction against learning 7 mitzvot as Universal av tuma avoda zara commandments. The Yovel only applies to produce grown within the borders of the oath sworn lands.
The revelation of the Torah at Sinai – mandates the Federal Sanhedrin Court system based upon the Torah serving as the Constitution of the Republic. Just as the Constitution of the US does not spread its Bill of Rights to Goyim living in foreign lands so too the Torah as the Constitution of the Cohen 12 Tribe Republic limited only to the borders of the oath sworn lands of this Republic. Therefore any post sealing of the Sha’s Bavli by Reshonim who seek to pervert the 1st Sinai revelation of the Name to some Universal God – like as expressed in the Av tuma avoda zara of both Xtianity and Islam – through ruling that the 7 mitzvot bnai noach apply Universally to all Goyim, such false instruction directly compares to av tuma false prophesy.
Yet the church never accepted the authority of the Oral Torah codified in the Talmud and mesechta Sanhedrin in particular! Halacha only applicable to Jews not Goyim. Both the Church and Mosque developed their own unique religious codes of theological creed belief systems. Religion never has anything to do with the Sinai brit obligation to rule the oath sworn Cohen inheritance lands sworn to the Avot with judicial common law court room legislative review based upon Torah Constitutional mandate. Any attempt by Shomronim, Tzeddukim, Karaim, Xtians or Muslims to superimpose religious theology belief system as a replacement theology qualifies as the Torah definition of av tuma false prophets who seek to persuade Jews to worship other Gods.
LikeLike