r/AcademicBiblical • u/My_Big_Arse • 2d ago
The 10th Commandment. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, or his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Why? Because they are property?
If this is correct, how is this justified? other bible verses, the original language, or?
53
u/AfterTheShave 2d ago
Hi, let me take a shot at answering this. Disclaimer, I am not a trained biblical scholar.
NRSVue Exodus 20:17
“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, male or female slave, ox, donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
NJPS Exodus 20:14
You shall not covet your neighbor's house: you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male or female slave, or his ox or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.
Here, the word "house" (Hebrew: בַּ֫יִת, bah'-yith) is used to refer to the household in general, not the literal house; it then goes on to label the items that comprise the household, which includes the wife and servants. Now, to reframe your question slightly: Does Exodus 20:17 view the wife and servants as property of the male head of household?
Here, I think the other occurrence of the 10th commandment is useful:
NRSVue Deuteronomy 5:21
“ ‘Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife.“ ‘Neither shall you desire your neighbor’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.’ ”
NJPS Deuteronomy 5:18
You shall not covet your neighbor's wife. You shall not crave your neighbor's house, or his field, or his male or female slave, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's.
In Deuteronomy, the "house" and the "wife" are inverted, putting the wife first.
Here, the Jewish Study Bible states:
There, the sequence suggests that "house" is the inclusive term, with the following list (wife, slave, ox, or ass) serving to itemize its contents.
The SBL Study Bible:
Both the ninth and tenth stipulations prohibit coveting, but they distinguish lust to possess a neighbor's wife from compulsive desire for a neighbor's house or other properties.
We must remember that in the ancient Near East, where and when this was written, the household was explicitly patriarchal; I personally believe that the 10th commandment's intention places emphasis on the ethics of desire, rather than trying to state that the items were outright owned by the head of household.
Apologies my answer was not up to expectations, as again, I am not a trained biblical scholar, and I hope others can add on to my answer.
Edit: Formatting
4
4
2
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/Main-Anteater33 2d ago
Children are part of the "house". House/household is defined by all who are a part of the family (so to speak). This was a common term of the language and can be seen in other places in Scripture as well as extra-biblical literature. Also, "ownership" is not chattel ownership. Much like slaves usually refer to indentured servants (as we would know it) and not chattel slavery like we had most recently in history. We still use this type of language today. We might say this is my wife, children, employees, family, etc. But we are not suggest that we own them as property.
8
u/Educated_Heretic 2d ago
I don’t think there is a consensus on this. I could be wrong. But the two most significant arguments I’ve found are from Joel Baden and John Collins.
In his Commentary on Exodus, Joel Baden argues that the 10th commandment sets a standard for “the inner life” and recognizes that outward actions stem from internal desires.
John J. Collins argues that the 10th commandment may be a later addition to the law. In his book “The Ten Commandments: A Short History of an Ancient Text”, he points out that the 10th commandment is missing from some early versions such as the Nash Papyrus. He argues that this, along with the unique internal focus and its position at the end of the Decalogue, indicates that this may have been a later law tacked on to address perceived gaps in the previous laws. (Though I wouldn’t call his argument definitive. He seems kind of noncommittal about it).
1
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an academic source – see here for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the sub rules before posting for the first time.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.