For the purposes of the ehrmanblog of course I am interested in Judaism & Christianity but am researching religions from all over the world and thru history to see if and how they incorporate the idea of “thinking it is as bad as doing it” the idea that simply having a particular thought can be considered a “sin”.
That God (or Gods in some traditions) can and will judge you based on thoughts you have.
If anyone here has any opinions, input on this in relation to Judaism or Christianity I would certainly appreciate it.
To begin with – does this concept even exist in Judaism/Christianity? One could point to:
Not coveting others belongings in the 10 commandments
Jesus stating that lusting is adultery in the heart
etc
But do these really constitute thought crimes or is that an over zealous too literal reading of the text.
I am also looking at Islam, other belief systems and ANE traditions, Greek thought, Eastern religions, etc etc etc to see if I can find the concept of thought crime there but those are outside the focus of this blog.
I am just beginning this research. The first scholar to answer the question I posed: Does the concept of a thought crime exist in Christianity? has been Mark Goodacre who simply replied: “No idea, I’m afraid!”
TY
Excellent points both of you raise…
My initial thoughts are running along the same lines
In orthodox Christianity for example there are “meta” thoughts, beliefs that would be considered a thought crime, something you will be punished for:
Believing Jesus was not raised from the dead
Believing Jesus was not divine
etc
Once you get outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity to a more relaxed progressive strain of Christianity like that of the late John Shelby Spong for example these particular “meta” thought crimes tend to melt away as God becomes much less judgmental and the idea that you will be judged and sentenced to a literal eternal hell of punishment for your “crimes” of disbelieving certain things is abandoned
The more “in the weeds” type of potential thought crime (like coveting prohibitions) is kind of a grey area reasonable people could disagree on individual cases that bump up against the “active” intent one has to actually follow thru on these thoughts which can sometimes be hard to exactly pin down –
This is an great article I highly rec:
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Excerpt:
“The rabbinic emphasis on coveting as action may also reflect a response to one of Jesus’ “antitheses” in the Sermon on the Mount found in the Gospel of Matthew.[11] In this section of the Sermon, Jesus argues that it is important for his disciples to be even more righteous than the Pharisees (Matt 5:20; NRSV):
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Jesus goes on to list ways in which his interpretation of the law is stricter than that of the Pharisees. For example, he argues that not only is murder a punishable sin, but even feeling anger toward someone or insulting them is a punishable sin (Matt 5:21-23). The important passage for our purposes is Jesus’ discussion of adultery (Matt 5:27-28):
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with craving (ἐπιθυμῆσαι)[12] has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
For Jesus, sins of the heart are equivalent to sins of action, and in this way, he argues, his interpretation of Torah is stricter and more righteous than that of the Pharisees. Whether they were bothered by criticism implicit in the Sermon on the Mount, whether they merely wanted to distance themselves from an interpretation appropriated by Christianity, or whether they took no notice of this passage at all, the rabbis’ position is the exact opposite of that taken by Jesus.
In the Rabbis’ view, it is unrealistic to prohibit feelings of attraction. For a feeling to be prohibited, it must be something the person thinks about realistically. Such a “craving” leads to active planning, in which a person works to take the desired object away from his fellow. It is this plotting that the Torah forbids in the tenth commandment of “do not covet your neighbor’s house,” as such behavior is destructive to society, the concern of the latter half of the Decalogue.”
I think it is a bit too much to say that thinking of an action is purely equivalent to doing it. That would suggest that if you feel the craving of lust for a married woman, you might as well go for it as the line has already been crossed, which I presume is not what he meant. I do note that it says, at least in translation, craving, which suggests more than the mere inkling of a thought. I think it is interesting that the KJV adds “without cause” to the section about being angry with a brother. I am probably doomed because my brother really is a fool and I often have cause to be angry with him. One might come away with two thoughts here. The first is that Jesus is primarily warning that sin is a kind of slippery slope and that one should try to avoid it as close to the top of that slope as one can. The second is that I wish I had a better understanding of the original words in the original language, hoping for some translation that is at least a little less extreme. The bottom line, I suppose, is that the standard suggested is quite literally impossible. That is the position that explains why the law is inadequate, except as a guideline, and we need grace.
Continuing to gather information this is from a wiki article – haven’t had time to research the Council of Trent yet:
Internal sin, in Christianity, is the idea that ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished by ** you do not have permission to see this link **:
- delectatio morosa, the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it;
- gaudium, dwelling with complacency on sins already committed;
- desiderium, the desire for what is sinful.** you do not have permission to see this link **
SC said
Continuing to gather information this is from a wiki article – haven’t had time to research the Council of Trent yet:Internal sin, in Christianity, is the idea that ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished by ** you do not have permission to see this link **:
- delectatio morosa, the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it;
- gaudium, dwelling with complacency on sins already committed;
- desiderium, the desire for what is sinful.** you do not have permission to see this link **
I’ve often wished Steefen’s fingers would freeze up so he couldn’t post anymore.
Is that a thought crime?
It does wish Ill on Steefen. Yet it also wishes good on the forum.
Gee. This thought crime stuff is tricky business, huh?
Council of Trent
Session XIV, chapter. v
ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENTS OF PENANCE AND EXTREME UNCTION
Excerpt:
“But, whereas all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath, and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek also for the pardon of them all from God, with an open and modest confession.”
JAS fyi: I also found it very curious KJV Matt 5:22 contains *without a cause* while most other translations (NRSV etc) do not so asked Bart :
“Later scribes added the phrase “without cause” — it was not original. They were probably motivated by the harshness of how Jesus put it — you can’t get angry with your brother no matter what. By adding “without cause” (which ,you’re right mean “good cause”) they made it more plausible. So the oldest form of the text (the “original”) did not have “without cause.” THe KJV is following later and less reliable manuscripts here. (The earlier mss were discovered after the KJV was completed)”
I was recently thinking about this exact same question. As far as I can tell, Paul was the first to say that your thoughts determine how God judges you and the author of Matthew was the first to make thoughts a “sin” that would be punished by God after death.
“Matthew 5:27-29
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin,[** you do not have permission to see this link **]”
While “coveting” is a thought-crime in the Hebrew Bible, there is apparently no Jewish punishment for breaking it:
-
The Mishna arranges laws topically, and so the ten commandments aren’t discussed together.
- I am the Lord your God: No punishment is discussed regarding this verse to my knowledge
- Idol worship: Stoning (Sanhedrin 7:4)
- Swearing in vain: Lashes (Shevuot 3:8)
- Desecration of Sabbath: Stoning (Sanhedrin 7:4).
- Honoring parents: No punishment is discussed to my knowledge
- Murder: Decapitation (Sanhedrin 9:1)
- Adultery: Choking (Sanhedrin 11:1, numbered chapter 10 in Gemara)
- Kidnapping: Choking (Sanhedrin 11:1, numbered chapter 10 in Gemara)
- Bearing false witness: Lashes (Makkot 1:3)
- Coveting: No punishment is discussed to my knowledge
However, a short list can’t give a full picture. Some punishments are disputed or only apply in specific circumstances. The eighth commandment, for instance, is ** you do not have permission to see this link **, even though they are already mentioned in the list above. They are already mentioned in the list above.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Is there an example prior to Paul of thought (belief) being the most important aspect of the religion?
Galatians 2: “We ourselves are Jews by birth and not gentile sinners, 16 yet we know that a person is justified[** you do not have permission to see this link **] and not by doing the works of the law, because no one will be justified by the works of the law.”
…there is apparently no Jewish punishment for breaking it:
Robert Alter points out in his commentary on the OT that the judgments were frequently much more pragmatic and reasonable than the demands of the original strictures. It’s one thing to demand the stoning of children. Another to actually stone children.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert