Most Protestants consider Exod. 20:4 ("You shall not make for yourslef a sculptured image..." -- as in King James Translation, "graven image" -- to stand along as their second commandment. Jews consider this to be part of a larger second commandment. Catholics translate "scultured image" as "idol" and make this verse part of their First Commandment. Lutherans also consider this to be part of their First Commendment (although I have not been able to fully determine how it is translated -- if there is someone who has a clear answer I would appreciate hearing from you, off list if you wish).
Jews Translate Exod: 20:13 ast "you shall not murder." Most Protestants and Catholics translate is as "Thou shalt not kill" (King James) Obviously this is a signifiant difference.
I could go on (I do at some length in my forthcoming article in Fordham.
The bottom line is this: there are more than 10 separate commandments in Exod 20; different faiths order them (number them) in different ways; Jews and Christians even number the verses in different ways; and the translations are very different have serious theological implications.
There is no one Ten Commandment that all faiths agree on or accept; nor is there a translation that they all agree on. ANY Ten Commandments monument will, by its very nature, be offense to some or all faiths, and will more than likely be an endorsement of others.
Jim Henderson is simply wrong, flat out wrong, in his assertion "But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified."
He may wish to believe this; he may even deeply believe and think that it is "true," but belief is not fact. His prohibition on killing is not the same as my prohibition on "murder."
His first commandment "You shalt have no other gods before me." (verse 3, King James version) is different in translation and meaning than my 2nd commandment, "You shall have no other gods beside Me." (Tanakah translation.)
Paul Finkelman
-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499
918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:10:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is fundamentally wrong as a matter of fact. There are far more than 10 commandments in what we know as the Ten Commandments.
<>There are significant differences in numbering the commandments, differences with significant theological overtones. There are important differences in translations and understanding, again with significant theological and practical import(Is it a ban on killing or murder? Does it encompass war or abortion or capital punishment? And there are crucial differences in the importance of the commandments. Are they as many Christians seem to think, the sum and substance of binding law after the advent of Jesus or as Jews think something else-a covenantal document or a summary of the law, but not its totality. I spell out these differences in an amicus brief in Orden v. Perry. Professor Finkleman has an article coming out in an upcoming Fordham Law review pointing out some of the differences and Professor Lubet had a similar piece in constitutional commentaries a few years ago.
Actually, it is fundamentally correct as a matter of fact. The Ten Words as set out in full are precisely what they are. And you are, of course, also correct, in that when we move away from literally reporting and repeating those Ten Words, when we move toward "Finding Meaning" in those commands, differences arise. But in the words, and even in their summarized various divisions among Jews, Catholics, and Protestants, the sum and substance of them is unified.
At the far edges of umbra, where lawyers and professors hunt for significance in difference, there are all kinds of provocations to be found. But take a parallel Bible and examine the passages in full and you get better agreement and unity than ever found at the Supreme Court, even when the issue is just interpretation of an ERISA provision.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
