The medieval execution tradition

[pipelineaudio]

I think you mean "Old Testament", but I'm open to correction.

Well, I guess it depends if you believe in the Jesus who says to follow the OT or the Jesus who doesnt. Either way these are technically in the bible

Jesus condemns lots of people to death, such as in Matthew 11:20

Parable of talents isnt so nice either

 

[Wolfman]

But kidding aside - i know what you mean and i´m sorry for
repeating it, but the Ten Commandments are still the same,
no matter if you prefer the old or new testament.

Sorry...not trying to be difficult here, just find the topic interesting. Let me present it this way:

In the United States, there is a Constitution. What that Constitution says is pretty plain. However, interpretations of that Constitution have changed over time. Even when the words remain unchanged, interpretations vary depending on the standards of the particular generation that is interpreting them.

Same thing with the Ten Commandments. Yeah, you'd think it would be pretty straight forward and simple; but if you study Jewish history, and Christian history, you will find that actually they've been interpreted in a wide variety of ways, by a number of different people. Sometimes interpretations were 'forced' by leaders who sought to use them to justify various actions. Sometimes interpretations simply evolved and changed as the society that was using them evolved and changed.

The problem isn't the Ten Commandments. The problem is that there are, in fact, numerous ways to interpret them (even though it would appear it should be straightforward). The question of "Does it say thou shalt not kill, or thou shalt not murder", and what specifically do the terms "kill" and "murder" mean, is just one of many, many other questions and arguments that have been raised.

In the end, the Ten Commandments don't determine what society does; it is society that interprets the Ten Commandments, and decides what they mean within their particular context.

 

[Beerina]

Actually, in the Old Testament, the original language used for the command very clearly stipulates that it is referring to "murder", not "killing".

It's interesting that modern day murder is legally defined as something like "the unlawful killing of a person", an argument that almost begs the question. "Unlawful" meaning not a manner permitted by law, which means self defense (which isn't exempted so much as it doesn't meet the definition of murder) and execution by the state. It's also interesting states are enacting "you don't have to back down" laws, where, apparently, you used to have to back down if possible when someone threatened you, a legal state we probably shouldn't have gotten into in the first place.

 

[Oliver]

Sorry...not trying to be difficult here, just find the topic interesting. Let me present it this way:

In the United States, there is a Constitution. What that Constitution says is pretty plain. However, interpretations of that Constitution have changed over time. Even when the words remain unchanged, interpretations vary depending on the standards of the particular generation that is interpreting them.

Same thing with the Ten Commandments. Yeah, you'd think it would be pretty straight forward and simple; but if you study Jewish history, and Christian history, you will find that actually they've been interpreted in a wide variety of ways, by a number of different people. Sometimes interpretations were 'forced' by leaders who sought to use them to justify various actions. Sometimes interpretations simply evolved and changed as the society that was using them evolved and changed.

The problem isn't the Ten Commandments. The problem is that there are, in fact, numerous ways to interpret them (even though it would appear it should be straightforward). The question of "Does it say thou shalt not kill, or thou shalt not murder", and what specifically do the terms "kill" and "murder" mean, is just one of many, many other questions and arguments that have been raised.

In the end, the Ten Commandments don't determine what society does; it is society that interprets the Ten Commandments, and decides what they mean within their particular context.

But that´s my point: Interpretation in this case seems to
be an attempt to circumnavigate a simple rule. I know that
everyone in history tried to interpret it the way they personally
believe - which is pretty machiavellianly in my opinion. It´s
a way to ignore the "rule" the way it is.

 

[Oliver]

*Bumping for christianity*

 

[Pardalis]

It's true that America is the the odd man out in the Western world, as far as the death penalty is concerned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

Maybe they'll come around some day.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

The thing to remember is you shouldn't lump all Christians together in one group. It's easy to say Christians favour executions, but of course that is a very broad generalisation. Some do, and some do not, and the reasoning behind these decisions will vary depending on the individual. Some will form their opinion on this matter from scriptural declarations, and some will use secular reasoning, and others will use some of both.

As an aside, I'm an atheist, but I'm uncomfortable with any group being painted with too broad a brush.

 

[Oliver]

The thing to remember is you shouldn't lump all Christians together in one group. It's easy to say Christians favour executions, but of course that is a very broad generalisation. Some do, and some do not, and the reasoning behind these decisions will vary depending on the individual. Some will form their opinion on this matter from scriptural declarations, and some will use secular reasoning, and others will use some of both.

As an aside, I'm an atheist, but I'm uncomfortable with any group being painted with too broad a brush.

Of course i don´t lump all my fellow Christians together, but they
are the majority in america. Therefore the majority seems to indorse
the death penalty.

I know the politics subforum is a godless place, but maybe
some Christian who supports death penalty is able to share his
or her view about it.

 

[WildCat]

Murder someone who murdered
someone is still murder in terms of the Ten Commandments.

Actually, the Old Testament commandment only applied to killing other Jews. It was A-OK to kill all the Hittites, Egyptians, Romans, etc that your heart desired. In fact, the bible is full of storys about God helping the Israelis commit genocide, and even set forth guidelines as to how to divide up the booty from the cities you sacked.

 

[Architect]

Actually, the Old Testament commandment only applied to killing other Jews. It was A-OK to kill all the Hittites, Egyptians, Romans, etc that your heart desired. In fact, the bible is full of storys about God helping the Israelis commit genocide, and even set forth guidelines as to how to divide up the booty from the cities you sacked.

However these things are pretty much contradicted by the New Testament; so much for that then.

 

[WildCat]

However these things are pretty much contradicted by the New Testament; so much for that then.

[ned_flanders]
I've done everything the Bible says - even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!
[/flanders]

 

[casebro]

It seems to me that a true believer in any religion that includes the believe in life after death, would be doing people a favor by killing the innocent. All you would be doing is sending them to heaven early, saving them from all the temptations here in an earthly life. Yes, I believe, most religions ought to support "Kill them all now, let God sort them out".

Of course, "believers" don't have to make sense, or any continuity in their beliefs. Or so they believe.

 

[Wolfman]

Actually, the Old Testament commandment only applied to killing other Jews. It was A-OK to kill all the Hittites, Egyptians, Romans, etc that your heart desired. In fact, the bible is full of storys about God helping the Israelis commit genocide, and even set forth guidelines as to how to divide up the booty from the cities you sacked.

Sorry, WildCat, but that is a misrepresentation of what the Bible teaches. Yes, there are definitely instances in which the Israelites are commanded to attack and kill their enemies; even brutal slaughters, such as that I mentioned above, where unarmed women and children were executed in mass groups.

But nowhere does the Bible give carte blanche that you can murder someone in cold blood if they are not an Israelite. In fact, the crimes for murdering a non-Israelite were exactly the same as those for murdering an Israelite. Here we come again to the definition of "murder". If Israel was in a state of war against another nation, and god told them to kill their enemies, then they could do so with no problem. That wasn't "murder". But simply killing someone, outside of those specific conditions, was every bit as much "murder" as killing an Israelite, and was subject to exactly the same penalties.

And, for that matter, when the Israelites disobeyed god, they were in turn punished by having other nations inflict the very same abuses on the Israelites...they had their nation torn apart, their people scattered, their temples destroyed, etc. All at the instigation of their god.

 

[pipelineaudio]

However these things are pretty much contradicted by the New Testament; so much for that then.

evidence?

 

[WildCat]

Sorry, WildCat, but that is a misrepresentation of what the Bible teaches.

Well I exagerrated a bit for dramatic effect, but there's obviously a boatload of exceptions to the "thou shall not kill" commandment. In fact, you can basically interpret the bible any way you want to do whatever you want. This is how we got so many bloody wars for the last 2,000 years over proper bible interpretation.

 

[David Swidler]

The commandment in question reads, "Lo tirtzach" (guttural final consonant, like an old guy clearing phlegm from his throat). The Hebrew root "r-tz-ch" refers to murder, i.e. unwarranted killing. So "Thou shalt not murder" is a much better translation than "kill."

While the text of the OT specifies all sorts of killing for various people and groups, a serious question remains as to whether it was ever practiced as such. The ancient Jewish sources took a dim view of capital punishment ("A court that executes once in seven years is considered a court of blood...some say seventy years. Rabbi Akiva said, 'If I were on the court, no one would ever be executed.'" - Mishna, Tractate Makkot), and the Talmud makes clear in the same book that the procedures for capital punishment simply do not apply when society has become so insensitive that the death pnealty loses its deterrent effect. The ancient Jewish courts did their best to avoid judging capital cases altogether a number of decades into the first millenium, when they determined that the national conscience had deteriorated to the point that it was ineffective.

As for the killing of other nations, I recall another thread on this subject from last year, when I-forget-who characterized the Israelite conquest (assuming it happened) as genocide. In that thread, I noted that although the pentateuch itself identifies the nations targeted for elimination, that fate was reserved only for those Canaanites, etc. who continued their incest, idolatry, and so on. Those who changed their behavior for the better were not to be mistreated, no matter what their ancestry.

Clearly, modern sensibilities don't match those of the OT's plain meaning, but it pays to remember that the plain reading ain't necessarily the way things were done.

 

[a_unique_person]

I just read the George W. Bush mocks a death row inmate http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72784http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld/misc/new_window.gif
thread and this question came into my mind:

The christan community in america is pretty large in america
and they´re all good obedient and honest people. What i don't
understand is this:

How is it possible to follow the "You shall not murder" rule
and at the same time support executions?

A misinterpretation of the "Ten Commandments" or what´s
their excuse?


PS: I know it´s partly a religious question, but also a political and
social one - and i would like to hear the non religious opinions, too.

The Bible tells you anything you want it too. "Eye for an eye" is also in there.

 

[Oliver]

Thank you for all your honest answers - expecially from
the people who are much more educated concerning the
Bible than me.

Since no christian death penalty supporter showed up in
here, i have to guess that they seem to favor the biblical
passages in question the way they want - or they prefer
the old testament in general ignoring the new testament,
which is pretty odd from my remembrances about my religion
lessons during my childhood because we were mainly told
the new one and it´s view. Maybe the "general" Religion
lessons in america differ in this point.

 

[Architect]

The Bible tells you anything you want it too. "Eye for an eye" is also in there.

That's Old Testament.


We need someone with a divinity degree to help sort this one out. And I mean a proper one, not some dodgy sect or mail order university!

 

[luchog]

Thanks for your enlightening reply, This Guy. As being christian, too,
the killing/murder argument contradicts. Murder someone who murdered
someone is still murder in terms of the Ten Commandments. So i guess
it must be a misinterpretation and because this tradition is still used,
it makes me wonder why the majority of voters, who are christians,
didn´t abolished the executions in the meantime.

This is completely wrong on many different points.

The biggest issues are:
1) The specific word "harag" translated "kill" in the KJV is a root with a number of different meanings, depending on context and construction; and can also be translated "slaughter", as of an animal. The construct used for that particular commandment carries an idiomatic translation of "kill unlawfully", or possibly "murder", although the latter is a bit too limited, since the idiom also incorporates death caused by negligence as well. The context of the scripture also make clear that the translation "kill unlawfully" is the correct one, since it prescribes a number of different offenses for which capital punishment is prescribed. Evidentiary standards are also quite strict for capital offenses.

2) Killing a murder is not murder in and of itself, since murder is an unlawful killing, whereas a sentence capital punishment is, buy definition, lawful. To equate the two might arguably be a valid moral choice, but legally and semantically, they carry distinct and dramatically different definitions.

3) Most of the interpretations of the passage as a proscription on all killing, judicial as well as extrajudicial, directly contradict the passages in scripture denoting capital offenses and mandating capital punishment for them.

4) Most of the justifications for intrepreting it as a complete proscription are based on tradition, and passages removed from their proper context and idiom.