Have a look at the two versions of the “Do Not Covet” Commandment, which Exodus and Deuteronomy claim Yahweh gave to Moses and all Israel, at Mt. Sinai:
Exodus 20.17:
לֹא-תַחְמֹד אֵשֶׁת רֵעֶךָ וְעַבְדּוֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ וְשׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְרֵעֶךָלֹא-תַחְמֹד אֵשֶׁת רֵעֶךָ וְעַבְדּוֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ וְשׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְרֵעֶךָ
You shall not covet your friend’s house. You shall not covet your friend’s wife, or his slave, or his maidservant, his cattle, or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your friend.”
Deuteronomy 5.21:
וְלֹא תַחְמֹד אֵשֶׁת רֵעֶךָ {ס} וְלֹא תִתְאַוֶּה בֵּית רֵעֶךָ שָׂדֵהוּ וְעַבְדּוֹ וַאֲמָתוֹ שׁוֹרוֹ וַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לְרֵעֶךָ
“And you shall not covet your friend’s wife. And you shall not desire your friend’s house, his field, or his slave, or his maidservant, his cattle, or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your friend.”
In a recent blog post, Claude Mariottini makes much of the change in order of the first two coveted items. The result of the change is that women are separated out from the property of their husbands. He rightly notes that Deuteronomy uses a different verb to describe the proscribed desire of a woman (hāmad חמד; cf. for the following property: ’āwāh אוה). This, claims Mariottini, constitutes “an important change of attitude toward the status of women in Israelite society.” He explains:
“The book of Deuteronomy’s revision of the Tenth Commandment separates the woman from a man’s property in order to give proper attention to the rights of the woman.
… I believe that the Deuteronomic sequence of “wife” and “house” is a radical shift in the view of the status of women in Israelite society. The Deuteronomic change reflects the increased concern for the status of women in Israelite society in the seventh century BCE and the recognition that women had legal rights as members of the covenant community.”
I have a couple of concerns with these conclusions:
1. Even if we accept that the change in order in Deut 5.21 is a conscious separation of women from a man’s property, and that it reflects some historical reality from some point in the history of Judea, is this really evidence of a “radical” shift in women’s status? We still have to ask: who are these coveting commandments being addressed to? They are addressed to males. Men are the the assumed addressees of at least this part of the covenant, even if women, aliens, and slaves are also included in the covenant elsewhere. That is, the assumed audience still comprises males, who are also addressed in the following sentence (in their normal capacity as property-holders). Although the word can have emotive connotations, it pays to remember that ‘Property’ is no more than ‘a bundle of rights’ that one person has over an object. But the word “property” does not appear in the Tenth Commandment. Instead, the verses talk generally about that which is “to your friend”. Given that the possessive “your” also appears with “friend’s wife”, couldn’t this also still include everything just listed in the verse, including “your friend’s wife”? Sure, there are different governing verbs for the wife and the other things, but the verbs are close similes. Moveover, and as a matter of realpolitik rather than the questionable use of imposed terms like “property”, is there any real evidence in Deut 5.21 that the bundle of rights that a Judean man had over his wife has been altered at all?
2. If the Deuteronomist’s changes result in some moral improvement, doesn’t this mean that the law delivered to Moses by Yahweh on Mt. Sinai (as recorded in Exodus) was morally inferior? Isn’t it a bit odd that “the recognition that women had legal rights as members of the covenant community” involves changing those very legal rights in order to recognise them? What does this mean for making laws today, if you accept that Yahweh made laws that “were not good” in the Bible? Isn’t there a continuing obligation to morally improve on Yahweh’s morally inferior laws? One obvious example, reflected in the Tenth Commandment, is the biblical law concerning slavery. The Bible never seriously challenges the morality of enslavement, only providing some minimal protection, and differentiating on the basis of race as between ‘Israelite’ and ‘non-Israelite’ slaves. Obviously, many modern nations have seen grounds for moral improvement to Yahweh’s laws here. How about, as a random example, the laws against same-sex relations? Are these morally inferior laws which should also be changed?
Update: Charles Halton, of Awilum, makes some further objections to Claude Mariottini’s approach. See his fine comment, in which he draws attenton to the need to separate out the views of the narrator from those of the characters, questions whether any cessation of marriage gifts would have effected a change in status for women, and questions the assumption that women were seen as equivalent ‘property’ with donkeys.
There are many factors in Q, a source for both Matthew and Luke, which point in the same direction:
N.T.WRONG 