The third (third!) commandment we have just read in Ex. 20:7 spells out the prohibition
לֹא תִשָּׂא אֶת שֵׁם יהוה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַשָּׁוְא
NIV: "You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God"
KJV: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain"
But what is this תשא, 'use, take'? It is not only a prohibition against false testimony which is explicitly stated in the ninth commandment. So what practically is it?
Isaac Fried, Boston University
The enigma of the third commandment לא תשא LO TISA
Forum rules
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
Members will observe the rules for respectful discourse at all times!
Please sign all posts with your first and last (family) name.
-
- Posts: 1783
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 8:32 pm
-
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm
Re: The enigma of the third commandment לא תשא LO TISA
I've never really understood the idea that נשא means anything to do with "taking/using", unless of course it's in the sense of "taking up so as to remove = forgive" (Gen 13:26).
Bar here (and Deut. 5:11), is there any other place where נשא can mean use?
From it's main sense of "lifting up/exalting", is this more a case of "You shall not exalt the name of YHWH your God for/on behalf of/with regards to falseness/worthlessness"?
Bar here (and Deut. 5:11), is there any other place where נשא can mean use?
From it's main sense of "lifting up/exalting", is this more a case of "You shall not exalt the name of YHWH your God for/on behalf of/with regards to falseness/worthlessness"?
Ste Walch
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm
Re: The enigma of the third commandment לא תשא LO TISA
S_Walch wrote:I've never really understood the idea that נשא means anything to do with "taking/using", unless of course it's in the sense of "taking up so as to remove = forgive" (Gen 13:26).
Bar here (and Deut. 5:11), is there any other place where נשא can mean use?
From it's main sense of "lifting up/exalting", is this more a case of "You shall not exalt the name of YHWH your God for/on behalf of/with regards to falseness/worthlessness"?
You're probably on the right track with this interpretation. I also think it is related to taking up an oath, pun intended. "Do not swear falsely in YHWH's name." In this way it is related to the ninth commandment, as Isaac pointed out.
As to why נשא is used here, "exalt" is one of the ways the concrete idea of lifting (taking up, picking up) can express an abstract idea. It can express the abstract idea of "forgiving" since the picture is that of the concrete "lifting, taking away, removing." But of course that's not its use here. נשא can also be used as "carry." So we need to examine the expression נשא לַשָּׁוְא with the concrete idea of lifting and/or carrying, and then seeing what the abstract possibilities are.
Jonathan Mohler
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
-
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm
Re: The enigma of the third commandment לא תשא LO TISA
Well, we have both נשא שוא used together in only a handful of other places:
Exodus 23:1: ; לא תשא שמע שוא אל תשת ידך עם רשע להית עד חמס
נשא with the idea of spreading/carrying around.
Psalm 24:4: נקי כפים ובר לבב אשר לֹא נשא לשוא נפשי ולֹא נשבע למרמה ;
This is the closest I think to Exo. 20:7/Deut. 5:11, with the idea of "exalting [their] soul to falseness" - this a sense of senselessness/emptiness? Or lifting up/living one's life on behalf of that which is false?
And finally Psalm 139:20: אשר יאמרך למזמה נשא לשוא עריך ;
Most English translations seem to incorporate a your name into the verse (probably due to the influence of Exo. 20:7), but I'm not so sure that that's what's meant. Bring/take/lift up your enemies to emptiness?
Exodus 23:1: ; לא תשא שמע שוא אל תשת ידך עם רשע להית עד חמס
נשא with the idea of spreading/carrying around.
Psalm 24:4: נקי כפים ובר לבב אשר לֹא נשא לשוא נפשי ולֹא נשבע למרמה ;
This is the closest I think to Exo. 20:7/Deut. 5:11, with the idea of "exalting [their] soul to falseness" - this a sense of senselessness/emptiness? Or lifting up/living one's life on behalf of that which is false?
And finally Psalm 139:20: אשר יאמרך למזמה נשא לשוא עריך ;
Most English translations seem to incorporate a your name into the verse (probably due to the influence of Exo. 20:7), but I'm not so sure that that's what's meant. Bring/take/lift up your enemies to emptiness?
Ste Walch
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm
Re: The enigma of the third commandment לא תשא LO TISA
They are emending the consonantal text. It seems they are treating עריך as a copyist error. As if the ayin were a faded shin, and the resh/yod a faded mem. This means that the original was probably שמך. I am rarely inclined to emend, but in this case I prefer the emendation.S_Walch wrote: And finally Psalm 139:20: אשר יאמרך למזמה נשא לשוא עריך ;
Most English translations seem to incorporate a your name into the verse (probably due to the influence of Exo. 20:7), but I'm not so sure that that's what's meant. Bring/take/lift up your enemies to emptiness?
Jonathan Mohler
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
-
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm
Re: The enigma of the third commandment לא תשא LO TISA
Well, the Septuagint translates it as λήμψονται εἰς ματαιότητα τὰς πόλεις σου / they shall receive/take in futility the cities your = they shall (try to?) take your cities in futility.
This means the LXX translator appears to have read עירך for עריך, which I think would speak against reading שמך in place of עריך.
I don't have a preference as to which reading I think is the original, not yet anyway.
Edit:
To throw a spanner into the works, the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript 11QPsa (Great Psalms Scroll) has אשר יאמרוך למזמה נשאו לשוא עריך, giving credence to the LXX's λήμψονται /they shall take.
Another meaning I guess could be "Your enemies exalt themselves to futility (=in a futile way?)."
This means the LXX translator appears to have read עירך for עריך, which I think would speak against reading שמך in place of עריך.
I don't have a preference as to which reading I think is the original, not yet anyway.
Edit:
To throw a spanner into the works, the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript 11QPsa (Great Psalms Scroll) has אשר יאמרוך למזמה נשאו לשוא עריך, giving credence to the LXX's λήμψονται /they shall take.
Another meaning I guess could be "Your enemies exalt themselves to futility (=in a futile way?)."
Ste Walch
-
- Posts: 307
- Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:03 pm
Re: The enigma of the third commandment לא תשא LO TISA
Then I will hold my judgment on the emendation. It is hard to believe that the consonantal text would be corrupt so early. Although this is attributed to David, so there is still room for copy error (six centuries).S_Walch wrote:Well, the Septuagint translates it as λήμψονται εἰς ματαιότητα τὰς πόλεις σου / they shall receive/take in futility the cities your = they shall (try to?) take your cities in futility.
This means the LXX translator appears to have read עירך for עריך, which I think would speak against reading שמך in place of עריך.
I don't have a preference as to which reading I think is the original, not yet anyway.
Edit:
To throw a spanner into the works, the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscript 11QPsa (Great Psalms Scroll) has אשר יאמרוך למזמה נשאו לשוא עריך, giving credence to the LXX's λήμψονται /they shall take.
Another meaning I guess could be "Your enemies exalt themselves to futility (=in a futile way?)."
Here's the NET notes on the word:
and their translation,33 tn Heb “who.”
34 tc Heb “they speak [of] you.” The suffixed form of the verb אָמַר (’amar, “to speak”) is peculiar. The translation assumes an emendation to יַמְרֻךָ (yamrukha), a Hiphil form from מָרָה (marah, “to rebel”; see Ps 78:40).
35 tn Heb “by deceit.”
36 tc Heb “lifted up for emptiness, your cities.” The Hebrew text as it stands makes no sense. The form נָשֻׂא (nasu’; a Qal passive participle) should be emended to נָשְׂאוּ (nosÿu; a Qal perfect, third common plural, “[they] lift up”). Many emend עָרֶיךָ (’arekha, “your cities”) to עָלֶיךָ (’alekha, “against you”), but it is preferable to understand the noun as an Aramaism and translate “your enemies” (see Dan 4:16 and L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 [WBC], 253).
Jonathan MohlerThey 33 rebel against you 34 and act deceitfully; 35
your enemies lie. 36
Jonathan E Mohler
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
Studying for a MA in Intercultural Studies
Baptist Bible Theological Seminary
-
- Posts: 343
- Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:41 pm
Re: The enigma of the third commandment לא תשא LO TISA
Apologies - I've made a mistake here.Jemoh66 wrote:Then I will hold my judgment on the emendation. It is hard to believe that the consonantal text would be corrupt so early. Although this is attributed to David, so there is still room for copy error (six centuries).
עירך would be your city, not your cities (although I'd be willing to bet I'd find the spelling עיריך within a DSS manuscript somewhere).
So the LXX translator has understood ערי as the Hebrew cities, rather than it being a possible Aramaic ערי/enemies.
Either way, this is an awkward text, so I'm not quite sure that it helps in trying to understand what נשא לשוא means.
Ste Walch
-
- Posts: 1531
- Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am
Re: The enigma of the third commandment לא תשא LO TISA
This in the context of spreading gossip, rumors.S_Walch wrote:Well, we have both נשא שוא used together in only a handful of other places:
Exodus 23:1: ; לא תשא שמע שוא אל תשת ידך עם רשע להית עד חמס
נשא with the idea of spreading/carrying around.
Interesting, the Aleppo codex has “אשר ימרוך למזמה נשוא לשוא עריך”S_Walch wrote:And finally Psalm 139:20: אשר יאמרך למזמה נשא לשוא עריך ;
DSS has, “אשר יאמרוך למזמה נשאו לשוא עריך”
Karl W. Randolph.