Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Perversion

America, please limited the use of the word "to believe in" here in this article and every where else in society. I am not going to enumerate its meanings here, but I often see people use it without its apprehension at best, and quite belligerently at worst, especially in interrogative form. I am no linguistic expert, but I suspect that it is as semantic as the word capital.

I like to speak of all of America when I say that we have no idea what you are talking about. You don't have to be a linguisist, but you do have to have an idea, and express it in a way that other people will understand.

Change of mind.

Removed this part: --Amillar 19:32, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since the second set of the Commandments are carried about,it seems reasonable to wonder what value if any had the memory (they are broken into pieces) of the first set of Commandments? It seems quite obvious God had a change of mind and rules, or else both sets would match. There seems to be two different traditional stories. The second set of commandments, the tenth being,"One should not cook a goat kid in its mother's milk", seems to be more primitive and possibly the older version.

Wives vs. houses.

I'm taking this part out:

Note that in Exodus 20, the Hebrew Bible reads "... neighbour's house, ... neighbour's wife, nor his manservant..." etc. (note the wife comes after the house, among the household belongings), while Deuteronomy 5, "thy neighbour's wife, ... thy neighbour's house, his field" etc. This change in the position of the wife is thought to be indicative of the social rise of women between the writing-down of the two versions.

How much time actually passed between Exodus and Deuteronomy? I doubt it was enough time for women to have any big change in their social status. I also doubt that their position in the belongings is even reflective of their social status. Show some evidence first.

Agnosticism.

'Liberal groups counter that they are explicitly religious, and that statements of monotheism like "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" are unacceptable to many religious viewpoints, such as atheists or followers of polytheistic religions.'

Hmph! No mention of agnostics?  ;-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

If an agnostic is someone who doesn't even know what he believes himself, how can he complain that a certain expression of belief is incompatible with his? An atheist can certainly say that reference to God is contrary to his beliefs, but an agnostic can't. --LDC

Agnostics know what they believe, and what they believe is that humans are incapable of reaching any true understanding of whether there is a God. --Koyaanis Qatsi

Koyaanis, would it not be more defensible to assert that some agnostics are active skeptics (i.e. nobody can know), rather than that all agnostics are skeptics? Some agnostics may say 'Well, I don't know'. Regardless, LDC has chosen to define 'agnostic' in a more narrow (and reductive) sense than either you or the Agnosticism article.

"Don't tell God what to do." - Niels Bohr -- Jeandré. 2004-07-04t16:23z

That "no other gods before me" is explicitly a statement of primacy not of monotheism. This is part of the actual Entry Subject, whereas the reactions of unidentified straw man "Liberal groups" is not. Wetman 14:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wetman, does that mean that Christians allow for polytheism? Does God acknowledge other gods? After all, primacy is hardly a great feat if you are the only one in the race!? (20040302)

I can't speak for Christians, but Yahweh of the Bible certainly allowed for polytheism. A jealous god, jealous of what? Of not existent gods? Does that make any sense. Plus, direct ref to other gods, Baal, Moloch. And the devil sure seems to have god like powers. And don’t forget the ’sons of gods that found the daughters of men fair and had sexual intercourse with them, producing a race a giants’ (Genesis). Sounds like polytheism to me. SAK

Images.

Not all Christians make or worship images of Jesus (see iconoclast, if someone's written it). I've edited to, I hope, clarify that. I also noted that opposition to posting the commandments on public property includes some church groups.

What translation of the bible is quoted there? That has a King James version, but ID would be useful. Vicki Rosenzweig

Islam.

Can anyone tell me why half of the introductory paragraph is devoted to explaining the Muslim position? It just seems very out of place, and probably ought to be moved somewhere to the bottom of the article, along with (or probably after) the Jewish, Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic positions. Ben

I do think it's informative to include at least a bit about Islam, so I put back a little bit in parentheses.

But does it need to be in the introductory paragraph? Certainly there's plenty of criticism in the Qur'an article, but it's all down towards the end. Ben

Ben may have discovered something about Islam. Does this seem to be a general trend at Wikipedia? Wetman 14:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wonder where the authors of the section Muslim understanding have found their information. It should be well expressed that although there is an overlap between the most important teachings of islam and those of the ten commmandments the consept of the ten commandments does not exist in islam. The part of the introduction to the article that mentions "They feature prominently in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. " should be re-edited to a higher calrity too. Hakeem.gadi 08:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Icons.

Regarding this statement: Roman Catholics have criticized the Orthodox veneration of icons ? When did they, and who exactly? I'm not aware of any such criticism, and would be glad to learn of it. Wesley 22:10 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC) (shifted into this section for its logical context.Wetman 14:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC))

Now really, does it make sense to gloss over the conflict in interpretation between different brances of Christianity? The sentence "the Roman Catholics tradition does not emphasize iconography as strongly as the Orthodox" is simply disingenuous: the Orthodox venerate icons, and the iconoclastic controversy of the 7th (or so) century was all about that. While the RCC today finds no problem with icon veneration, it occasionally criticised the Orthodox practice in the past and it's worth mentioning that. The differences of interpretation between different sects (whether real, or merely polemical) are essential to the part of the article that addresses different interpretations of that commandment. It should be possible to cover the controversy without sacrificing NPOV. Ideally, we'd go into a bit of history of iconoclasm within Christianity, as it's been entirely based on this commandment.Ben

I agree that a lot more could be said about iconoclasm. In fact, there's already a separate article on the subject. I suggest a brief mention here, since it is relevant, and a link to the full article. Wesley

Excellent suggestion! Text within each section should be worded in such a way as to bring up links to further discussion of controversy round each of the Commandments.

- I am concerned that the idea that the Jehovah's witnesses are "conveniently ignoring the phallic" symbolism of the stake maay be a little POV. Perhaps it should be edited into a new sentence saying that critics on the other hand, charge that they are avoiding the phallic idea? Mishac 06:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

) "A little POV," kind of like "a little pregnant." It is definatley POV.Sethie 06:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Perjurious 'pedia.

Something a little peculiar: it now includes (for the Jewish interpretation) "(3) "You shall swear falsely by the name of the Lord..."" I'm no expert, but I think there's a missing negative here. Vicki Rosenzweig

Fixed!

Disapearing Jewish commandments.

Hi, everybody. Several days ago, I expanded to a great degree the section on Judaism and copyedited the part on Catholicism. For some reason, the old version keeps coming back. Now I don't care whether this is a Wiki engine error or someone returning the old version, but I ask you to respect the changes that I had introduced. Thank you. Uriyan

Translations.

The article quotes from the King James Version and goes into a lot of discussion of problems in that version (but not, interestingly, the translation of "kill"). I suggest that a modern, scholarly translation of the Ten Commandments be used instead, either (New) JPS or NRSV. I would prefer the former but I don't have ready access to the text, so if there are no takers I'll use the NRSV wording instead. SCCarlson 04:31 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

The KJV remains the most familiar source and most widely circulated translation for Bible quotations, and is deeply embedded in the culture of the English speaking world in a way that no later translation is. My personal preference would be to keep it. At least, if another translation is used, preserve the familiar "thou shalt not" language, that also distinguishes singular from plural in the original in a way other versions either fail to do, or do cumbrously. IHCOYC 12:43 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think the singular/plural difference is really important. It's just that the "thou shalt not" wording is so familiar to people, it would actually seem pretentious to write it another way.

Incorrect view of Orthodox Ten Commandments.

The Orthodox view of the Ten Commandments is not properly presented. The following is stated: "Catholic and Orthodox Christian understanding of the Ten Commandments Catholic and Orthodox Christians understand the Ten commandments in the following way: (Deuteronomy, RSV) ..."

Actually, Catholic and Orthodox Christians divide Ex. 20: vv 2-6 and v 17 differently. The differences between the Catholic and Orthodox divisions can be seen by comparing the following sites: 1) Summary of the Commandments from 'Catechism of the Catholic Church': http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm 2) The Ten Commandments from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7115.asp 3) The Ten Commandments from the OCA (Orthodox Church of America): http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/bible-and-church-history/the-ten-commandments.html

The following page has a nice table that compares the four different traditions of numbering: Philonic (P); Talmudic (T); Augustinian (A); and Lutheran (L). http://www.bible-researcher.com/decalogue.html

Information like that implied is lost here on the Talk page. The differences should be analyzed, using quotes freely, and these sites should be in External links, if this has not already been done. Wetman 14:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Some".

some have criticized the version as archaic (e.g. "thou shalt not" instead of "do not") There's that old Some who's responsible for so much "legend has it..." The use of "some" is a disguised passive voice which means to avoid attribution. It is a widespread Wikisin. Do complaints about the language he uses belong in the entry Geoffrey Chaucer?Wetman 14:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reorganize.

This page is quite confusing and badly needs a copy-edit. There is much repeated text and much mixing of differing views. Consider having one separate section for each religion, and putting all statements sbout religion X in the section of religon X (i.e. avoid phrases like "Xs understand this but Y read that" or "Unlike Xs, Ys understand that..."). Each section should include the corresponding text from the corresponding edition of the Bible. Jorge Stolfi 22:12, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the elements that are the same could all be gathered together, and keep separate the things that differ between religions. Mkmcconn — 17:51, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Idolatry question

Sorry for being ignorant, but in my experience I don't think I have met anyone of any faith that worshipped the object rather than what the object represents. Even Hindus (e.g. Krishna Vaishnavites) who treat a statue of Krishna with meals and washes say that the statue is representative of Krishna.

Have I missed something? Is there any definitive proof that early middle-eastern religions did otherwise than every modern counterpart? My experience appears to severely damage the Christian interpretation of idolatory, as I doubt that there has really ever been someone who worshipped the physical reference as being an identity with the referent. (20040302)

Great questions! See the article on idolatry for some answers. If this doesn't answer all of your questions, then please bring up your concerns on that entry's Talk page, and we'll see if we can improve the article. RK

Thanks for the link, RK. The article appears to be reasonably accurate, though very heavily concentrated concerning idolatry from the Abrahamic stance. Also, a notable lack of response to the counter-arguments of the Asian response (Cross/Kaaba as idol - a fascinating semiotic issue). (20040302 18:19, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC))

It appears (answering my own question) that Exodus 36:35 And he made a veil of blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen: with cherubim made he it of cunning work. is evidence enough to show that Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth is not to be taken literaly - indeed that it is actually okay to make likenesses of cherubim for instance, so long as one does not make the mistake of worshipping them rather than God. There is also reference to false gods, reinforcing the theo-imperialist position of the Abrahamic religions. Therefore, it appears that a sensible meaning being given to the idolatry question is that worship of any god (regardless of the graven image blind) or thing other than Yahweh is "idolatry". So, though the Philonic rendition of the decalogue splits verse 3 and 4, the other interpretations do not do so. In this case, it seems just to say that the term idolatry is a misnomer in its common Abrahamic useage, in that even a simple interpretation of Exodus makes it clear that it is not so much the idol, but it's worship. In a broader sense then - my interpretation of this portion of the decalogue would be "Do not be heterodox", which would act as a substantial foundation for the institutionalisation of the Abrahamic faith. (20040302)

• In proper language Idolatry is defined as the concretization of a symbol or form which represents a divine power. When it was written that Yahwey said, "I am final!" he became concretized. The Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions share this founding idea and are at their source idolatrous. This might explain why each of these religions have been historically intolerant to other religions "idols". If their God is concrete, then his personification is no longer a symbol of God but IS God. He becomes an idol inside the human mind. When they see others' idols perhaps they feel the shame of their own hidden idolatry? Perhaps this deep psychological denial of idolatry has been at the root these religions' intolerence for other religions? [User: Dynamisto]

Precisely. The statues of Baal were representations of THE God, not of "Baal". The name "Baal" means "Lord", or basically it can be interpreted as "Master/Highest Being". The prohibition of the second commandment is not just meant to exclude statues of gods and goddesses, but any sort of representational object of anything. However, this might only apply to 3-dimensional objects, or the Cherubim on the Ark being some kind of exception.

The third set

Anonymous users keep on pushing a version where a third set of commandments (in Exodus 34) is mentioned. Does anyone know what they're trying to say? The commandments in that chapter have very few parallels to the actual Ten Commandments. I would have found Leviticus 19 closer to the mark. JFW | T@lk 19:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You use the term "the actual ten commandment" to ref to those in Leviticus 19 (that's a new one on me, most people site Ex 20 or Dt 5). The bible ref's to those in EX 34 (see EX 34.28 I think) as "The Ten Commandents". So, we anonymous users are ref'ing to that which the bible ID's as "the ten commandents" as "the ten commandents". So now you have to ask yourself, 'why did I think that those in Ex 20 (or Lev 19)were "real", the ones written in stone on the moutain'. See "Ten Commandments on TV", just added at the end of this section. You are getting your "truth" from TV producers and Sunday school teachers, then pulling out of the bible only what you you "know" as "true", and not reading what is there!

SAK

==The final set of 10 commandments== The story as follows: Exodus 32 While Moses is up on the mountain the golden calf is made. Moses sees calf and breaks tablets. Severe punishment.

Exodus 33 Tabernacle placed outside of camp. Moses enters. God shows himself to Moses.

Exodus 34 God tells Moses to make new tablets and God will again put the words on them. Last or 3rd set of 10 Commandments. 34:17-1, 34:18-2, 34:19-3, 34:20-4, 34:21-5, 34:22-6, 34:23-7, 34:24-8, 34:25-9, 34:26-10. The last commandment being: do not cook a goat kid in their mother's milk. These are the set to be carried in the ark. (Since the first set were broken and now replaced.)The explanation for the difference can only be one thing. God has changed his mind. (God is allowed to do that!) Kazuba I have genuine curiosity and a passion for the obscure. I'm a grunt. Also see: Resurrection added a couple things, then scroll down to Bodily Disappearances. Bet you learned something new. 7 Oct 2004

Charles [now "Kazuba"], you are referring to a section of Exodus that refers mainly to the Jewish holidays, the redemption from Egypt and the associated commemorative rituals. They may be ten in number, but they have nothing to do with the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy. I oppose the insertion of your list unless you can provide a classical source that confirms your claims. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with JFW. The Torah (five books of Moses) contains many hundreds of commandments (613, by rabbinic tradition.) However, the phrase "ten commandments" has no relation to the text that you are quoting. RK 04:27, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Gentlemen (I think, women are wise enough to not get involved with this stuff) Notice the narrative. Exodus 32-34. I do not think there are 10 commandments "here" only by coincidence. I think the author knew exactly what he was doing. There is no reason the 10 Commandments have to apply to everyone for all time. The peoples and contemporary audience involved in this epic are those who left Egypt with Moses. Kazuba 12 Oct 2004

I have added a sentence mentioning the status of Exodus 34:14-28 among many academic biblical scholars according to the documentary hypothesis. It is believed to represent a layer of the Torah that was written after the establishment of the Jerusalem Temple, a period in history where ritual concerns were beginning to take precedence over ethical obligations. The other decalogue in Exodus is assigned by them to the "P" (Priestly) source and Deuteronomy's to the "Dtr" (Deuteronomist) source. Fire Star 20:42, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fine, as long as there is a clear reference that this is a DH theory and not traditional Biblical scholarship. JFW | T@lk 20:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no universally accepted DH theory, academics seem like different denominations themselves when they argue about it. I also try not to endorse the DH generally when I mention it, only report it. Fire Star 01:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whatever. What it comes down to is this, there may be 2 sets of Ten Commandments: one possibly composed before the other. Since the Exodus 34 set appears to be more primitive in style, I have a suspicion this set is the earliest or original set. The other, Exodus 20, may have been cleaned up as social awareness grew. Certainly at some later time, early Christians claimed the Exodus 20 set as their own and excluded Exodus 34. These were too Jewish. Kazuba 13 Oct 2004

This is at odds with what Fire Star is saying. The DH hypothesis is that the Ex 34 commandments were more ritualistic and hence came after the "original" 10C. Disclaimer: I don't subscribe to the DH. JFW | T@lk 13:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to disagree or agree. It's no big deal. We are trying to discuss ancient, remote, ill- documented things here. There is no way we can tell "what really happened" about 3,000 years ago. We are only human. Kazuba 13 Oct 2004

I agree that with our present state of knowledge the theories of the DH are just theories. As far as the timing according to one theory then, the "J" source is considered the earliest layer, next come "E," then "P" (according to Friedman, anyway) then "Dtr." J and P supposedly represent Davidic or Temple "Aaronid" interests; E and Dtr northern "Mosaic" interests associated especially with Samuel and Jeremiah. I woudn't say that J's decalogue is more primitive, but more political. There were probably many traditions associated with Jacob, Aaron, Moses, Balaam (temples to whom have been found in Syria), you name it, that weren't written down for hundreds of years after the actual time of Moses, so it is possible that one version is preserved better, technically closer, to the actual decalogue which Moses promulgated ca. 1200 BC than another. Who knows? It is like a detective story. Mendenhall makes a good point that they are more like ten "predictions," conditions without which a community is doomed to self-destruct. Luther said "Your God is that which you are most afraid to lose." In that light, the first commandment (which Jesus is reported to have said was the most important of the ten) makes more sense: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Ethical obligations to God and each other should outweigh the "pagan gods" of greed for sex, wealth and power over others, if not... Anyway, this is all subjective opinion on a talk page, I don't know if it is possible to fit very much of this into the article. Cheers, Fire Star 20:12, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Fire Star, I think you are getting off the track. In the present Exodus text do we have two different traditions which define the Ten Commandments or not? What would you tell your 10 year old grand child if you were asked this question? Then surely the next question, if you know kids, Why did we pick only one? Isn't the whole Bible the Divine Word? Kazuba 14 Oct 2004

Charlie [now Kazuba], your suggestion has made it into the article. Please don't patronise Fire Star on how he would explain things to his grandkids. JFW | T@lk 21:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jfdwolff, I certainly apologize if I did something wrong. I mean no harm. It is difficult for me to understand "boundaries of curiosity". Please don't use unfamiliar words like patronise. I looked it up in a dictionary and I still don't know what it means. I'm just a grunt. Kazuba 14 Oct 2004

Hi guys, no offence taken. To answer Charlie's [now Kazuba's] question, I don't think I'm off track at all. I've spent a lot of time and study working on just why something like the decalogue would be important enough to be preserved so zealously for so long. Personally (time for my disclaimer, JFW), I do believe what Moses and Jesus (and a few of the prophets) were told was indeed directly from Yahweh, but I also believe that the bible we have today was re-written several times to suit the political exigencies of the scribes doing the writing. This is why you have a passage such as Jeremiah 8:8 talking about how some versions of the Torah are from the "lying pen of scribes," and Jesus constantly ripping on scribes and Pharisees. I also believe that, fortunately for us, the offending scribes simply couldn't understand the most valuable parts of the teachings and left them pretty much unchanged. So you could say that I believe in the underlying validity of the teachings of the bible rather than the literal word-for-word truth of the entire thing. The "traditions" that the DH talks about were segments of biblical society that had their own priests and their own stories of the founding of Israel by Moses. If someone were to publish a Torah for public consumption that left out any tradition's own version of the story, then that segment of society would object (hence Jeremiah 8:8). What I believe happened is that each group in turn eventually wrote their own Torah and then they were combined by Ezra and Nehemiah several hundred years later. A similar thing happened with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, to my mind. Myself, I think my main contribution to this particular article will eventually be reporting some on the academic thinking surrounding the actual time of Moses himself and the unique nature of the tribal federation he founded based on these ten sayings, rather than the subsequent history of the decalogue, which is covered elsewhere. I hope this helps. Fire Star 01:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Attempted edits by Fire Star

Please explain the series of edits you have attempted to place in the article before actually re-writing the article in this way. You have inserted Yahweh instead of God at various apparently random points. You have confused the issue of the controversial "third" set of 10 commandments. The theophany you describe is contoversial at best. etc. Jayjg 19:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Greetings Jayjg, thanks for the message. Fair enough. The variation of God with Yahweh was just an editorial variation, an "elegant variation" (one hopes) as Fowler would say. Most people will know God=Yahweh in this case. It seemed to me that the third set of commandments issue was confused by the paragraph at the bottom claiming for the third set what the Introduction claimed for the Deuteronomy version. The manifestation of God to Moses on Sinai is a classic example of theophany, where the name Yahweh is used for the first time, and the rules of conduct for Yahweh's chosen people are hand-delivered to Moses. That's a pretty big deal, much more well known than Isaiah's theophany reported in the theophany article itself. I did make the assertion conditional, however. I'm not married to my edits, they were a bandage on the new section that I found this morning down at the bottom of the article. It had good info, but it seemed redundant and like it confused the issue a bit for me. I will propose a rewrite here in a few days then, and I look forward to your comments. Fire Star 19:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

YHWH is actually used throughout Genesis, and (according to the Jewish commentators) the "theophany" He introduced Himself to Moses by this name in Exodus 6:3. It is a non-issue. JFW | T@lk 15:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The alleged 3rd set

How does this prove that there were more than "10 commandments"? The text records God as saying " I will inscribe upon the tablets the words that were on the first tablets". In contrast, he tells Moses to "Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel". "These words", being the commands he had just been given. This is a completely different set of commands.--Josiah 00:08, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. The 3rd set combined with sets 1 & 2 produce 19 distinct commandments.
2. The sets 2 & 1 on their own produce 11 (not ten).

CheeseDreams 21:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your unique counting scheme is interesting; is that original research? Different groups count different ways, but they generally agree that there are 10. Whose theory is it that there is a third set? Jayjg 21:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The {} sign/s

One or more of the sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning were removed by User:Yoshiah ap, and I happen to agree with him here. Hopefully, pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please tell me you've heard this before:

I was reading one of my Jewish Theology Books (The Book of Jewish Values) and at one point the author- one Rabbi Joseph Telushkin- states, without naming his source, that a scholar of ancient hebrew had told him the third commandment was imperfectly translated; that idiomatically, the word 'take' is closer to 'carry', and that the commandment should be interpreted not as meaning that God's name was sacred but that one must never act falsely in the name of god. As evidence, Telushkin pointed out that why else would it be that God says things like "God will not allow the one who takes His name in vain to go unpunished." God doesn't seem to think that the commandment against murder needs that extra emphasis. I can't remember where from, but Telushkin also quotes a bible passage that says that this is the one sin which will not be forgiven. Telushkin argued that falsely carrying the name of God would be the only sin which makes God the victim, by damaging his reputation.

Needless to say this makes so much sense that I cannot easily dismiss it. Have any of you heard anything remotely like this before?

- Robin Moshe

Well, it doesn't sound outrageous. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pirkei Avot states that profaning G'ds name (by publicly acting against His will) is unforgiveable. Perhaps he was alluding to that. This is, however, not the usually translation of the third commandment. JFW | T@lk 12:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Have seen this in the Buber/Rosenzweig translation. Pilatus 12:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Question on translation

Uhm, probably not the most trusting sources :), but I think I heard it more than once, and so it is at least an, well, urban legend: I got told that the Ten Commandments are mistranslated and actually should be the Ten Promises or so. Instead of "Thou shalt not kill" it should be "Hey, lad, you'll never need to kill anymore as long as we're in this together, OK?". Well, usually it's not that informal, but I would like to know if there's any truth in it (anyone knows enough ancient hebraic to check that, or maybe give any source for this story)? --denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 00:10, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

The sixth commandment consists of two words: "Lo tirtzach". Lo means "do not", and tirtzach means "kill". Quite straightforward, isn't it? The Talmud (oral law) permits murder only when another's life is threatened (the principle of rodef), and execution by a court similarly falls outside this rule. JFW | T@lk 12:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. This sounds pretty convincing :) --denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 21:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

But you are not allowed to kill someone in place of yourself. The hypothetical, "Who would you choose instead of yourself?" situation. (I realizes these comments are old, but just wanted to stick this in for posterity) --Mechcozmo 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "tirtzcah", means to murder. To kill a man is "laharog". This is a commandement not to murder. Obviously execution by a court, or killing your enemy during war falls outside this rule.

Conventional (ethical) vs. Biblical (ritual) commandments

I'm curious as to why the text identified in the Bible as the Ten Commandments is not covered in the article. I came to this article hoping to find a discussion of why they are not followed today. I believe the phrase עשרת הדברות only occurs three times in the Old Testament, twice as an injunction to follow them, and once identifying them. The identification is in Ex34, with the ritual commandments. These are bracketed by

JEHOVAH said to Moses, Cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets [...] I hereby make a covenant.

[commandments of Ex34]

JEHOVAH said to Moses, Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. [...] And he wrote on the tablets the words [terms] of the covenant, the ten commandments [terms].

And these commandments easily number ten, without any fudging like the commandments enumerated in the article. Certainly for a fundamentalist, these are the terms of the Covenant one must follow? And even if not, doesn't this deserve coverage? —kwami 00:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Since I haven't received any input, I put a short disambiguation paragraph in the Overview, with a link to Ex34. kwami 23:38, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Fuhgettaboudid. No original research please. JFW | T@lk 00:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This isn't original research. Any standard biblical reference will discuss the ethical vs. ritual Commandments, usually with the idea that the ritual Commandments are older. The omission of any mention of this in this article is egregious. kwami 02:16, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

So provide a reference please. It is certainly not mainstream Jewish or Christian thought. JFW | T@lk 20:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, see below. One of the Cambridge or Oxford reference volumes covers this very nicely, but unfortunately the copy I saw is 500km away. So here's what I found browsing the local library. Even annotated Bibles use the "ritual" vs. "ethical" terminology, which should show that the idea is hardly revolutionary.

You are right about this not being mainstream religious interpretation, which is why I felt that a simple disambiguation was sufficient. When people say "Decalogue" or "Ten Commandments" without clarification, of course they're referring to the ethical version. For example, the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon Press 1962) admits that "the term [Ten Commandments] is derived from Exod. 34:28 ... where Moses is commanded to write the Ten Commandments (lit., 'ten words') on two tablets of stone", but then goes out of its way to deny that these are the Ten Commandments, saying that Ex34 claims to be the Ten Commandments, but that they aren't found there (meaning that they don't match the other versions). However, this book goes on to discuss why Jewish interpretations of the Ten Commandments are wrong. Non-sectarian reference books don't have the same difficulty with recognizing the Ritual vs. Ethical Decalogue. For example,

Ex34.1-35: God renews the covenant by writing the commands again. The narrator here inserts a different version of the Ten Commandments (see v. 28), since the first version (20.2-17) has already been recorded. Scholars call this version (vv. 11-26) the "Ritual Decalogue".

annotation in The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, Coogan, ed. 3rd ed. 2001.

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible should be good enough for anyone, but here are a few more just in case:

There is another and, acc. to many OT critics, older version of the 'Ten Words' preserved in Exod. 34:11-28, where much more emphasis is laid on ritual prescriptions.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Corss & Livingstone, eds. 3rd ed. 1997.

The passage that most likely contains the earliest material about the covenant is Exodus 34:10-26. Its core (vv. 17-26) contains some features which indicate that the material may be old.

The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, Kee, Meyers, Rogerson, Saldarini, eds. 1997.

34:1-28 The Proclamation of the Covenant: [...] the covenant stipulations are not the same as those in chaps. 20-23. This is surprising, because it is the clear implication of v. 1 that the new tablets are to have the same thing on them that the broken tablets had, and v. 28 states flatly that Moses writes "the ten utterances" on the tablets. In the text of the chapter, however, there is a different list of apodictic laws (vv. 17-24) in place of the Decalogue. These difficulties have led scholars to the conclusion that chap. 34 preserves a part of the account of the making of the first covenant in the original J narrative, a parallel to the E and P account in chap. 20, even though it now stands as an account of the making of a second covenant, or rather a renewal of the first. The commandments in vv. 17-24 are sometimes called the Ritual Decalogue to distinguish them from the Ethical Decalogue that occupies the same position in the account of the broken covenant (20:3-17).

HarperCollins Bible Commentary, Mays gen. ed. Revised edition 1988.

The next reference is biased in the opposite direction of sectarian ones, in that it's overtly skeptical. But it uses the same terminology:

These [Ex34] then, at least according to the Bible, are the true Ten Commandments, and they differ radically from the commandments verbally announced in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. From here on, I will refer to this new set of commandments as the ritual Ten Commandments. [...]

The Bible presents four different legal codes, each with a claim that it was the original version of God's covenant with Israel. The only version specifically and clearly identified in the Bible as the Ten Commandments is the ritual version.

101 Myths of the Bible, Greenberg, 2000.

I understand, based on the passage in that Bible guide 500 km from here, that the switch from the ritual to the ethical commandments was motivated by the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which made following the ritual Decalogue impossible. But I was hoping to find a more detailed account here in Wikipedia, which is why I was surprised that the ritual Decalogue wasn't even acknowledged as existing. —kwami 02:14, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

As long as you quote one autoratitive source, there is no problem. It is still a revisionist theory. Judaism still believes that there is only ONE set of ten commandments, namely the "ethical" ones (which are also very practical, see Shabbat), and the "ritual" ones are treated as equals of the 603 others. Please do make this clear if you feel the distinction needs to be made. JFW | T@lk 16:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I made a clarification. In the Jewish thought I've read, however, the ten commandments (of whichever version) are no more important than any of the others. As commandments of God, they're all equal. The Decalogue is simply a handy summary, not a priviledged few. kwami 19:54, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

That's not a correct summary of Jewish thought. In traditional Jewish thought the "Ten statements" translate into 14 or 15 of the 613 commandments, and the "Ten statements" are considered an important overview or encapsulation of the 613. In any event, feel free to create a well-referenced section on minority understandings of other kinds of "10 commandments", but please don't try to push that idiosyncratic view into the introduction. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought that's what I just said. Summary = encapsulation, yes? kwami 21:51, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Jayjg, for the following comments, I'm assuming, based on what you just wrote, that you're the one who just deleted the disambiguation from the intro. My apologies for sounding patronizing if it wasn't you.

The purpose of an introduction is to introduce a topic. All of the topic, not just the part you happen to agree with. The phrases Ten Commandments/Decalogue in a literal sense are ambiguous. In the literature you will come across mentions of both the ethical and the ritual Decalogue. Therefore the intro should mention both. This isn't a minority or idiosyncratic interpretation of the Ten Commandments: everyone agrees that in common usage, "Decalogue" means the ethical commandments. However, since a literal reading of the Bible causes scholars to distinguish ethical from ritual, this deserves at least a mention, a disambiguation. And since the ritual commandments are not an important part of lay people's understanding of the Ten Commandments, any elaboration should either be at the bottom of the article, as an afterthought, or in a separate article. This means that a mention is required in the intro, to let people who are interested know it's there. I'll let someone else write an actual article; for me, the link to Scripture is sufficient. But I'm putting the disambiguation back where it belongs.

If you don't like my wording, feel free to write something clearer. But we need something to avoid POV. kwami 22:04, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity here; there is a minority opinion. Write that section, then insert it (with references), and we'll worry about any "ambiguities" in the introduction after that. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Judaism Template

I have added the Jews and Judaism template to the "Jewish understanding" section of this article, to mirror the Christianity template usage in the "Christian understanding" section. It does seem to be unusual to have an article with two templates -- perhaps the better solution would be to remove both. For now, the balance seemed important, as I could not see a reason why the article should prefer Christianity over Judaism. ~CS 4 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

This very article was, in fact, a great part of the impetus behind my move to attempt to create Template:Judaism, a rather moribund template at this juncture, but one which I hope to take up again, in earnest, in the next couple months. Tomer ^TALK July 4, 2005 04:20 (UTC)

Page Title

I would much prefer to have the page moved to Decalogue. The present title Ten Commandments reminds me uncomfortably of the "Ten Commandments" monuments in the United States that are so steeped in the Protestant tradition. Pilatus 12:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

They are known as the Ten Commandments; most readers of Wikipedia would be unfamiliar with the term "Decalogue". JFW | T@lk 14:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

So they are, but a redirect from Ten Commandments to the more scholarly Decalogue would work. Pilatus 14:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone wanted to, this might be an opportunity to seperate the scholarly-decalogue material from the political-controversy material. I think it might be a good idea to have a Ten Commandments page with links/redirects to decalogue and public religious monuments.--Tom harrison 15:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Good idea - Ten commandments for the Ten Commandments in the narrow sense, and Decalogue for the Decalogue narrative in Exodus 19 - 34. Pilatus 10:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not a good way of doing it. 99% of all readers would expect "Ten Commandments" to deal with the lists in Exodus 19 and Deuteronomy 5. To pretend that either "Ten Commandments" and "Decalogue" is something else is a serious distortion for the sake of satisfying some people's POVs. I'm sorry that you don't like public monuments, but that is not enough to do draconian things. JFW | T@lk 16:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I see your point. One problem, as I perceive it, is the meaning of the word Decalogue. It can refer to the Ten Commandments in the narrow sense, i.e. Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21, and that is what "most people" take it to mean. In the scholarly literature, it can as well mean the whole Decalogue narrative in Exodus 19 - 34, and the Ritual Decalogue. Do take a look at the Encyclopedia Biblica! The other problem is that religious dogma and biblical scholarship are two distinct things. To shout fringe view when someone calls Exodus 34 the Ritual Decalogue is mistaken - this is what that passage is called in the literature. How the results of scholarship fits in with religious dogma is a completely different cup of tea. Pilatus 14:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why can't we move the section on the monuments into a separate article? It's not concerned with the Ten Commandments itself, rather with issues like the separation of church and state. Besides, they are a phenomenon in the US, and much could be written about them. Pilatus 14:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Does Pilatus' suggestion about doing this as a redirect not address your concerns?--Tom harrison 01:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No. The page should be placed under its most common title, with other potential titles redirecting to it. See the naming conventions. It's plain Wikipedia policy, so there is really no case here. Pilatus can make his disaffections known in another way. JFW | T@lk 11:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Pilatus, to respond to your suggestion of making Decalogue a disambiguation page linking to Ten Commandments and Ritual Decalogue... It's the same problem. If you ask a Biblical scholar where the Decalogue is, he will respond that traditionally, Ex 20 and Deut 5 are understood as such. The "ritual decalogue" is called such to disambiguate from the "main decalogue".

I hope you understand my considerations. Wikipedia is a powerful knowledge tool, but when naming and organising pages it has to be borne in mind that articles have relative prominence. I think the situation as it stands is the best one. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The present article is unwieldy. I think that Ritual Decalogue should be its own article, but we should also separate-out the theological discussion of the ethical decalogue into an Ethical Decalogue article. The Ten Commandments article can refer to the two theological articles, note that most people ignore the Ritual Ten Commandments, and include the discussion about attempts to put graven images of the Ethical Decalogue on government property. COGDEN 19:55, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Samaritan section problems

The samaritan script, while derived from Paleo-Hebrew, is quite distinct from the "original hebrew alphabet". Also doesn't saying that the Samaritan pentateuch "harmonizes many of (the Judaic Pentateuch)'s contradictions" break NPOV? --216.80.8.142

This is a section on the Samaritan interpretation of the TCs, so yes, it's Samaritan POV. Perhaps that could be said more explicitly. kwami 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Where are the Ten Commandments?

I don't get it: There are two pages full of musings, but not a single commandment. Is that on purpose? Do you all think your babbling is more important than the word of God? God Bless America 18:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The short answer is, the ten commandments are listed in Ethical decalogue. This is an encyclopedia article about the ten commandments, not the commandments themselves. As you point out, they are listed elswhere. Finding them is the easy part. Tom harrison 18:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ethical Decalogue is a redirect to Ten Commandments. As a user, I would expect to find the list of the commandments or a link to the commandments on the very first page, without having to scroll around. The very first section should have the text itself. Csbodine 10:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Whose version? Which religion, which passage, and which translation?

They used to be listed under Ethical Decalogue, but the articles have since been revised. If you want the text, there are links to Ex20, Ex34, and Deut5 in the intro to this article. kwami 11:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Im with Csbodine on this one, I came to this article just hoping to look up the ten commandments as a quick reference but in the end it was very hard to find them :( --Timmywimmy 02:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS [INSERT EXTREMIST POV OF CHOICE HERE]

Initial discussion

Why on earth was this page turned into a faux disambig? 3 billion people believe that "Ten Commandments" refers to the ones in Ex 20 and Deut 5. A few hundred academics think there's a set in Ex 34 as well. Can we PLEASE undo this disastrous move and get the "ethical decalogue" back to this page title? I'm completely sickened by the lack of consensus-seeking that has gone into this move, and protest most vociferously FDuffy (talk · contribs)'s pushing of DH POV. JFW | T@lk 12:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have undone most of the destruction by moving the "Ethical Decalogue" article back here and merging the edit histories. I'm issuing an RFC. JFW | T@lk 12:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Coming over from RfC. I can't say that I know a lot of Christianity and Judaism but I agree with Jfdwolffthat the vast majority of people expect the Ten Commandments to be here and not have this article made into a disambiguation page. Andries 19:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Articles should be designed to be useful to the average reader, not to a tiny number of academics, and we've already been over this whole issue in August. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This NPOV-rebalancing has been up for discussion since August, and since nobody opposed the move, FDuffy was very justified in making the change. But now that everyone has awoken from their slumber, we should definitely address the issue. This article has to be more than a disambiguation page; however, we have to be careful about sacrificing the NPOV principle on the altar of "what people expect". If we have the text of the Ethical decalogue here, we needto also include the text of the Ritual decalogue, with an explanation of why there are two decalogues. For further detailed information about either particular decalogue, people can be referred to the appropriate article. Anything less than this violates the NPOV principle. COGDEN 04:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• "NPOV principles" were not and are not designed to distort reality, and reality is that the Ten Commandments are not known to be what User:FDuffy would like to twist them to be for his own POV edit warring. IZAK 04:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The "undistorted reality" here, in your view, is not relevant to creating a proper and balanced Wikipedia article. Whether you agree or not, the idea that there are two sets of Ten Commandments is citable to sources in scholarly literature. Any attempt to suppress a verifyable and citable point of view is very much against the NPOV principle, which as Jimbo Wales said, is "not negotiable". COGDEN 08:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The article already points out, in the intro no less, that scholars recognise another, distinct set of commandments. That's all we need. No more. Please. JFW | T@lk 15:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not consistent with NPOV principles to briefly mention a controversy in the introduction, then in the rest of the article, treat the controversy as if it didn't exist. The article cannot state or imply that the Ethical Decalogue is the Ten Commandments, anywhere in the article, without violating NPOV. COGDEN 17:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm responding to the RfC. I agree with COGDEN that an explanation of why there are two decalogues should be included in this article. Not including it tilts the balance of the article toward one POV. LarryKirk 04:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

We should first understand what it means for there to be two. It does not mean that any person alive considers the Ritual decalogue as the "Ten Commandments" rather, it is an opinion that when the bible text refers to a set of Ten Commandments, that it could also be referring to this other text. It is thus not being POV at all to refer primarily to the Ethical decalogue, while mentioning the scholarly contention and linking to an article on the ritual decalogue. There is plenty to discuss on the conventional "Ten Commandments" and it is foolish to make this merely a disambiguation page when, like some disambiguations, the vast majority would consider one interpretation as primary. An article on the Ten Commandments or Decalogue that considers the two of equal relevance for the article is not being encyclopaedic, but overly-scholarly. --jnothman ^talk 12:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

To the contrary, there is a very widespread understanding among Biblical scholars that there are two sets of "ten commandments", based on the literal Biblical text and historical considerations. The faithful, of course, tend to focus on only one of the sets of "ten commandments". Shoveling off all the information about the ritual decalogue into a sub-page is overt favoratism toward the POV that despite the literal biblical text, the ethical decalogue is the only "true" set of "ten commandments". We can't do that, no matter what the polling data shows regarding public opinion on the issue. COGDEN 18:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think both versions should be in the main article. Anyone who is looking for the ethical decalogue will have no trouble finding the dedicated article if they desire more information than is given on this page, while people who are unaware that there is any question as to the identity of the commandments may find the ritual section interesting. This really does seem to be the least POV approach. I don't know how POV vs. common usage debates like this are usually resolved, but I can certainly understand why people would want the common usage in the main article and alternative views in sub-articles. (If we're going to go that route, I suppose we could go further and include only the Jewish interpretation in the main article, and for "alternative" views say 'See Christian interpretations of the Ten Commandments'. The TCs are, after all, essentially Jewish.)

When I first added a note mentioning the ritual decalogue to the intro of this article, I was asked by one of those who maintain it (Jayjg) to elaborate on it in the main text, just as FDuffy has done. I didn't do this because I assumed that people would have a fit and delete it, whereas it would be less 'in your face' as a separate article. That is, I made it a sub-article as a purely practical strategy to avoid a POV edit war. I suppose the question before us is, Do we want to compromise on NPOV in order to avoid conflict? kwami 18:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Kwami, to force an "uncommon" usage onto a page is a form of POV, of which I hold yourself and Francis guilty. Judaism and Christianity agree that there are ten and that they are in Ex 20 and Deut 5. I think that by pushing the Ritual Decalogue any further than it is now, you would be violating NPOV.

Listen carefully to what you are saying: "It's NPOV as long as it doesn't dilute the purity of the article with points of view that are different from orthodox Judaism and Christianity". Do you see the irony? COGDEN 22:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I also hotly disagree with COGDEN. This is the same mistake as Francis and Kwami have been making. Just because scholars recognise two sets of commandments does not make them equivalent encyclopedically. I gave the Berlin example above. Will any of you please tell me why this situation is any different? JFW | T@lk 21:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you don't really understand the NPOV principle. Wikipedia does not judge the relative merits of one theory or idea over another. Favoring one of two alternate ideas, neither of which are fringe theories, is the opposite of NPOV. It doesn't matter if we think it's "unencyclopedic". Encyclopedic simply means that which we find in other encyclopedias. But the Wikipedia was designed to be more neutral than your average World Book article. COGDEN 22:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to force Francis's edit, as I said before. I feel that a disambiguation in the introduction is an acceptable compromise between equal weight and refusing to acknowledge the ritual decalogue at all. At least, I'm not going to fight over it.

As for Berlin, Irving Berlin and the band Berlin are not identifiable as the city of Berlin. They are separated from the city for the same reason that the Ten Commandments of the Bible are separated from the movie The Ten Commandments. The ritual vs. ethical decalogues, however, are more like East vs. West Berlin. Let's imagine for a moment that the Berlin Wall still stood: I think people would be justified in objecting to the "Berlin" article being exclusively about East Berlin, with West Berlin only being mentioned in the introduction with a phrase some people use the name "Berlin" to refer to the city of West Berlin. For more, see West Berlin, and from that point on being written as if West Berlin didn't exist.

My main objection to the present version is similar. As COgden mentioned, after the intro, the discussion assumes that the ritual decalogue doesn't exist. This isn't just a matter of concentrating on the ethical decalogue. For example, it talks about how the ethical decalogue was engraved on the stone tablets, while scripture describes the ritual decalogue being engraved on the tablets. This is fine for 'Jewish interpretation' etc., but not for the article as a whole. That is POV, just as much as if after the link to West Berlin, the Berlin article went on to describe the entire city of Berlin as if the Wall didn't exist and it were all East Berlin.

It's fine to say that the particular interpretations of the TCs have it that it was the ethical version that was on the tablets, but it is POV to claim that the Bible says this, as if there were no question about it. If we don't give equal weight to the two decalogues in the main article, the least we can do is not pretend that one of them doesn't exist and speak of 'the decalogue' and 'the ethical decalogue' as if they were universally synonymous.

kwami 22:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's my take on Berlin: The difference between the Ten Commandments and Berlin is that with Berlin, nobody is trying to argue that the city of Berlin is the only true Berlin, and that there are no others; i.e., that Irving Berlin and the band Berlin are not actually the Berlin. If that were the case, then we'd have to rename the article to something like Berlin (city), and maybe have a central Berlin page that describes the controversy, and why Irving, the band, and the city are vying for the title of the Berlin. COGDEN 22:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV.

Undue Weight: Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. To give such undue weight to the lesser held view may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

The vast majority of "concerned parties" consider the "Ten Commandments" to be, well, the Ten Commandments, and not the "Ethical decalogue" that a small number of biblical critics have postulated. Attempts to change the focus of this page will place undue weight on a minority opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I can accept that. In fact, I have already accepted it. However, not giving minority views as much or as detailed a description does not mean pretending they don't exist, which most of this article does, even outside the explicitly POV sections. kwami 02:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We're not talking here about an extreme minority or fringe opinion. The idea that there are two sets of "ten commandments" is a mainstream opinion, probably the predominant opinion in theological circles. It's only in pop religion where the one set only view reigns. The concerns about "undue weight" were never meant to suppress a mainstream but unpopular opinion. Otherwise, the History of Mesopotamia article would begin with a long description of the Garden of Eden and the Deluge, with a footnote to a sub-article about paleolithic people in the Middle East. Look at the polls: that's what most Americans believe, so we shoudldn't give undue weight to the views of a few elite scholars who don't go with the majority, right? COGDEN 04:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The polls would say: "Jeez, I'd never even heard about those other ten. Who the hell came up with that?" Since when is "pop religion" not an important factor? Are you saying that three billion people are just plain wrong? The present solution is perfect: the DH phenomenon is mentioned in the intro because it is large enough as to warrant its own article. That is how it's gotta be. JFW | T@lk 07:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Three billion people are just plain wrong about lots of things. That's why we have encyclopedias. kwami 08:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not about who's right and who's wrong. That's the point. The Wikipedia can't judge whether (1) the experts are right, or (2) the masses are right. You have to treat them equivalently, just like in any other subject--like evolution, like UFOs, like the Kennedy assassination, or any other subject where popular views conflict with scholarly views. So the most neutral choice is to summarize both POVs in this article, and then provide a more detailed treatment of each particular set of ten commandments in the ethical decalogue and ritual decalogue articles. If you like, we could rename these articles to something else, like Ten Commandments (traditional) and Ten Commandments (ritual), but I don't think that's necessary. COGDEN 18:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Francis? His opinion would be appreciated in this interesting discussion that he sparked. Kwami: do you think the 3 billion people are wrong, then, or just unenlightened?

Since it's a matter of opinion, no, I wouldn't say they're wrong. But few people have read the Bible closely enough to have noticed the discrepancy. kwami 00:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

COGDEN: you seem to completely misunderstand the passage from WP:NPOV quoted by Jayjg above. The "ritual decalogue" is a fringe theory. Face it. The DH is the plaything of academicians and has not found much of an audience with the general public, apart perhaps from some particularly imaginative rubbish from Wellhausen, such as the two Creation narratives. I have already outlined, above, the "principle of least astonishment" as applied to this article. When a reader looks for the Ten Commandments he will expect something on the ones listed in Ex 20 and Deut 5. It is interesting that some theorists think there is also another set as listed in Ex 34, but without a modifier "Ten Commandments" refers to the ones we all know.

It's hardly fringe, unless you consider academia to be fringe. kwami 00:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The discussion is becoming rather circular. I suggest we leave things in their present state, and carry on with whatever we are good at. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Could we at least word the article so that it doesn't deny the existance of the ritual decalogue after the link in the intro? kwami 00:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Depends. Presently, the article is not actually "denying" anything. It just deals with the 10C as understood by the vast majority of mankind. What kind of changes would you like to make? JFW | T@lk 02:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to keep it at the status quo for a while, until I have a chance to work on it. I think time is usually much better spent working on articles, rather than talking about them. COGDEN 21:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Francis' initial response and reactions to it

The ritual decalogue is not a fringe theory. 90% of academics, AND the vatican does not constitute the fringe, the 10% that disagree are the fringe.

• It is a simple fact that the only place in the entire torah that the words "the ten commandments" occur is at Exodus 34:28.
• It is a fact that the distance between the list at Exodus 20 and these words is some 14 chapters.
• It is also a fact that there are commandments in Exodus 34 concerning ritual.
• It is also a fact that these commandments can more easily be arranged into precisely 10 commandments than those of Exodus 20.
• The term "ritual decalogue" applied to Exodus 34 is therefore a fact, not theory. It is simply an accurate description of its content.
• The only theoretical element is whether or not the ritual decalogue was intended as the ten commandments, by its writer, who may, or may not, be Moses, or the Jahwist, or God.
• It is certainly the case that they are over 90% closer to the words "the ten commandments" than are those of the Ethical Decalogue.
• The term "Ritual Decalogue" is used by almost all academics to refer to the commandments of Exodus 34, whether or not they support the documentary hypothesis or other textual criticism, whether or not they are fundamentalist (n.b. in the UK "fundamentalist" generally means "one who believes scripture to be the literal truth of God") Jews or Christians. It is simply the only name for the section, and is not regarded by academics as controversial in itself, in the same way that "plagues" is the accepted uncontroversial term for the events preceeding the passover, whether or not one believes they actually happened.

The only thing which is, in fact, a matter of debate, is why it is Exodus 34 that has the wording "the ten commandments" and not Exodus 20, and what significance the list of commands at Exodus 34 may or may not have had.

Quite why the fact that

• According to popular culture, and tradition (including religious tradition), "the ten commandments" are those at Exodus 20
• According to critical scholarship, "the ten commandments" is ambiguous and can refer to either of Exodus 20 and Exodus 34
• According to THE BIBLE ITSELF, "the ten commandments" is a reference in Exodus 34, not Exodus 20.

is in anyway controversial, is something I do not understand. --francis 21:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

But then it is quite clear that academics don't use the term Ten Commandments to refer to what they indeed call the Ritual Decalogue. What is referred to by "The Ten Commandments" pretty much anywhere but in the Bible is Exodus 20. What the bible says is the Ten Commandments is important to the article. But saying that what is referred to by the term "The Ten Commandments" is generally the Ritual Decalogue, or even much of the time the Ritual Decalogue, is a lie, because it is NOT referred to as the Ten Commandments nearly anywhere except in the Bible itself. --jnothman ^talk 10:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

True. Can we say that explicitly in the article? That according to the Bible itself the TCs are Ex34, but according to common usage it is Ex20? kwami

I am pleased Francis has finally come to the aid of his move. I'm disappointed that he was childish enough to change the title of this discussion[1].

I changed it because the title was inappropriate, and took sides. I changed it to something less discriminatory. Calling someone childish is completely prohibited under every circumstance, in wikipedia, and I would consequently like an immediate apology. --francis 22:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The section in Ex 34, which I read quite closely today with the commentary of S.R. Hirsch, does not in any way state that the mitzvoth given between the hewing of the second set of tables and the sentence "these are the words of the convenant" refer to the Ten Commandments. The flow of the text is also strange: what was Moses doing on the mountain anyway? Why was he hewing a second set of tablets and what had been on the first ones? In the absence of a ban on idolatry, who cared about the Golden Calf anyway?

It's all injunction, speculation and cleverness for the sake of nothing. The theory raises more issues than it solves, and this is why: until Goethe, nobody had interpreted those few lines in Ex 34 as being "the Ten Commandments", and to speculate that they were was an innovation not supported by a shred of historical evidence.

Now on to the matter of naming this page. Francis counters that few people know about the Ten Commandments anyway. As a student of theology he should know better. It is one of those concepts that has forcefully found its way into Western Culture, and whole books of popular literature are woven around their subject matter. Ask any student with a general education. I suspect that of the people who have heard about the Ten Commandments (a subset of the world's population), about 0.1% will have heard about the set in Ex 34. That's frighteningly small, and I suspect Francis already knew this.

I am all for naming articles according to their academic nomenclature. I was the admin who moved heart attack to myocardial infarction because the latter is the only correct term for that disease entity. However, one cannot ignore the most common use of a term, even amongst academicians.

I urge Francis, COGDEN and all concerned to rest this battle. The "ritual decalogue" is exactly where it should be: mentioned prominently in the article intro, with its own page for considerations of space. I would have supported a seperate paragraph in this article as well, but the present solution is perfect. JFW | T@lk 22:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how you can advocate changing heat attack to myocardial infarction but not advocate changing the present Ten Commandments to ethical decalogue. I suspect that if you interview the everyone with a general education, they would know what a heart attack is, but I suspect only about 0.1% of the people interviewed would know what a myocardial infarction is, as well. But, as you would probably agree, the name myocardial infarction is better because it's more specific. The term heart attack is slightly ambiguous, just like Ten Commandments. For example, heart attack can also refer to angina pectoris. Similarly, Ten Commandments can also refer to the ritual decalogue. COGDEN 22:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Heart attack typically refers to myocardial infarction. That page explains clearly, in the intro no less, that some people refer to "unstable angina pectoris" when they say "heart attack". The similarity with this discussion is truly striking. JFW | T@lk 00:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It would be striking if this article were essentially moved to ethical decalogue. Then you'd have a discussion in ethical decalogue that briefly mentions ritual decalogue in the introduction, which is very appropriate. COGDEN 06:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Rejoinder from Francis

The section in Ex 34, which I read quite closely today with the commentaries of Friedmann, Noth, the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the brief comments from Israel Finkelstein, clearly implies that the mitzvoth given between the hewing of the second set of tables and the sentence "these are the words of the convenant" refer to the Ten Commandments, as described only at Exodus 34:28. The fact that these words are 14 chapters away from the commandments of Exodus 20, but right next to the mitzvoth of Exodus 34 is a huge clue. Its like having a map with a label saying "France" over the country containing Calais, and then claiming that France is the country on the map that contains Bombay.

The flow of the text is indeed also strange. The documentary hypothesis explains this quite neatly.

• In the E source, Moses went up the mountain, was given the Covenant Code, inscribed on two tablets, and smashed them in anger at the Golden Calf, there was no second pair of tablets. The ban on idolatry, is very noticably present in the Covenant Code.
• In the J source, Moses went up the mountain, was given the Ritual Decalogue, inscribed on two tablets, and came down, the tablets remaining perfectly intact, there being no mention of the golden calf, and no second pair of tablets.
• In the P source, Moses went up the mountain, was given the Ethical Decalogue, inscribed on two tablets, and came down, the tablets remaining perfectly intact, there being no mention of the golden calf (deliberately missed out because it subtly attacks the foundation of the Aaronid priesthood, which happens to be responsible P source), and no second pair of tablets
• R, interlacing these accounts to produce the torah, causes it to describe Moses going up the mountain, getting the Ethical Decalogue (c/o P), inscribed on two tablets, and then going to talk with Yahweh further, in the process of which (c/o E), getting the Covenant Code, smashing the tablets after the golden calf (also c/o E), and then making two tablets (c/o J) again (R adds the words like unto the first), going up the mountain (c/o J) and getting the Ritual Decalogue (also c/o J).

To speculate that Exodus 34 were the Ten Commandments is a process supported by over 90% of academics in the field of Biblical Criticism. That should tell you something about how much such speculation is respected academically.

"Francis counters that few people know about the Ten Commandments anyway" No I don't. I do however counter that few people know all the academic information about the Ten Commandments. While it is one of those concepts that has forcefully found its way into Western Culture, and whole books of popular literature are woven around the subject matter, it is nethertheless the case that few of these indicate any academic knowledge of the subject whatsoever, many inaccurately using "thou shalt not kill" rather than "thou shalt not murder", for example. Ask any student with a general education.

While only about 0.1% of the world will have heard about the set in Exodus 34, even less have heard about Jan van Eyck. That doesn't mean his skill is not substantially noteworthy, or worthy of being a major component in discussion of certain aspects of art. The number of American Jews who are also Haredi, and dispute any critical scholarship is only about 0.1% of the population of the world, and that's frighteningly small, and I already knew this.

The term is deliberately avoided by academics in the subject area, precisely because it is ambiguous, only mentioning the term when they are going to mention both Exodus 34 and Exodus 20.

The ritual decalogue is exactly where it should be. The ethical decalogue is not. Considerations of space have to reflect NPOV, and forcing one into a subpage, wheras the other gets a huge chunk of the article, completely violates this.

Ordering one side to stand down isn't a very consensus based approach, violates NPOV, and is completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. As is hurling insults around.

--francis 22:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not ordering anyone; I'm urging you and your friends to consider something. Nor am I insulting you as a person by referring to your manipulation of section titles as "childish". I've changed it back, anyway. I this bothers you greatly, just change it to something neutral, and not to gibberish.

As for the explanation of Ex 34 according to the DH: if I had 4 sources at my disposal I could juggle anything to fit my preferred theory. The word "Convenant" can be applied with equal ease to all mitzvot given between Ex 21 and Ex 34. The fact that there are ten commandments sandwitched between the writing of the [second] tablets and this pronouncement makes for interesting ideas but remains rather unconvincing. I gather the "original" J, E and P sources are not extant?

I'm sorry, but the fact that you find it 'rather unconvincing' is completely POV and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I personally find it completely convincing, and if that's what we're going to base this debate on we'll get nowhere.

Yes, the J, E, P sources are not extant. This is why it's called the documentary hypothesis and not the documentary history. BTW, you don't have to buy any of the claims of the documentary hypothesis to note that the Bible clearly states that the items in Ex34 are the Ten Commandments, are the Covenant, and were inscribed on the stone tablets that were placed in the Ark. kwami 00:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

As for the page placement, your parallels don't add up. For those people who recognise the name Jan van Eyck it is immediately obvious that he was a Flemish painter. Similarly, for those people who recognise the term Ten Commandments, the vast majority will say that they contain instructions like "don't kill" and "don't steal". This firmly fits with Wikipedia's naming criteria, as listed elaborately here. JFW | T@lk 00:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You forget this convention: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). The name Ten Commandments is not precise, unless its an article about both the ethical decalogue and the ritual decalogue, which it currently isn't. COGDEN 06:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, we're back to popular conception vs. academic conception. If the majority of people believed that biological evolution preceded by mean of Intelligent Design rather than through natural selection, should the body of the article on evolution be entirely about ID, with only a disambig to natural selection in the introduction? kwami 00:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. That's how Wikipedia works. It doesn't claim to represent the truth. It does aim to represent all ideas fairly with a sense of proportion.

As for your above comment: the Bible doesn't "clearly state" that those ten are the convenant and that they were inscribed on stone tablets. JFW | T@lk 02:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no "imprecision" about the name "Ten Commandements". Everyone knows precisely what the term means, including the tiny number of academics who insist that there is also an "ethical decalogue". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect you meant "ritual decalogue" (or shall we merge the two and call it eicosalogue?) JFW | T@lk 21:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Another new section

"I'm urging you and your friends to consider something".

That implies that the people supporting me are doing so because they are "friends". I do not go around childishly trying to gang up as many people that I know will support my opinion before I enter a dispute. The people who appear to support me are doing so because they are ordinary unconnected editors who consider my stance to be the appropriate one, not because I go around with a gang to enforce my POV.

"Nor am I insulting you as a person by referring to your manipulation of section titles as childish".

Yes you are. There is no excuse for characterising anyones behaviour as anything derogatory. Read WP:NPOV.

"if I had 4 sources at my disposal I could juggle anything to fit my preferred theory".

True. I could easily accuse you of doing just that. The point is to consider where the sources agree, what the consensus is amongst academics. Check it out. My stance is the one that agrees with them on this.

"The word "Convenant" can be applied with equal ease to all mitzvot given between Ex 21 and Ex 34."

True, and it is. See Covenant Code (a.k.a. Book of the covenant).

"The fact that there are ten commandments sandwitched between the writing of the [second] tablets and this pronouncement makes for interesting ideas"

"I gather the "original" J, E and P sources are not extant?"

I gather the "original" torah is not extant. C.f. the septuagint, which is earlier than the masoretic text, the samaritan pentateuch, and the syriac peshitta, none of which completely agree.

"Jan van Eyck it is immediately obvious that he was a Flemish painter."

He could be generically dutch. He could be from Luxembourg. He could be an American. The name is not enough.

"for those people who recognise the term Ten Commandments, the vast majority will say that they contain instructions like "don't kill" and "don't steal". "

Yes, but they'd still be wrong. Even the instruction you are referring to actually says "don't murder", which many Jews consider to be offensive if you translate it as "don't kill", and many Jews consider the other commandment to be "don't steal people" (i.e. don't kidnap). So, as you can see, the majority still get it wrong. We must be precise.

Let me rephrase Kwami's evolutionary point. If the majority of wikipedians, and western popular culture, believed that biological evolution preceded by mean of Intelligent Design rather than through natural selection, but the majority of scientists believed that natural selection was the answer, should the body of the article on evolution be entirely about ID, with only a disambig to natural selection in the introduction?

"There is no "imprecision" about the name "Ten Commandements". Everyone knows precisely what the term means,"

Yes, it means things which are

• commandments
• there are 10 of

Neither the ethical decalogue, nor the ritual decalogue, are clearly 10, and the ritual decalogue are certainly closer to there being 10 rather than 14 or 15.

"including the tiny number of academics who insist that there is also an "ethical decalogue"."

The "tiny number" is 90% of academics studying the bible for reasons other than religious interpretation. This "tiny number" includes the "insignificant" vatican.

--User talk:FDuffy 13:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

what does the commandment

"You shall not covet your neighbor's house", mean?"

The word house should actually be translated as household, which originally meant his entire property, including his wives, his children, his slaves, and his land. COGDEN 21:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The text states these explicitly. JFW | T@lk 22:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the question is more about coveting than about house? The meaning of the latter gets a fair coverage in the article. Coveting is basically envy, or desiring something that one doesn't have. I'm not sure why the translations never use envy and so whether there's additional nuance to the meaning of covet. Maybe the meaning of coveting should be explained in the article somewhere, but I'm not sure whereabouts. Notably, Maimonides distinguishes the Exodus use of the word תחמוד (covet) and the Deuteronomy תתאוה (desire), saying that the former is only violated if there is an associated physical action (including buying the desired object) whereas the latter is in the heart. jnothman ^talk 22:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This also was (and is) a society that believed in the evil eye, and some have proposed that 'covet' may have meant 'casting an envious gaze' which, even if not intentionally, could curse the object of envy. It may be that English translators didn't use 'envy' on the belief that the distinction was important in Hebrew, even if meaningless in English. kwami 23:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The best translations I've seen have a colon after the word house or household, indicating that what follows is an amplification of what proceeds. That seems to me to be a pretty good bet for the Exodus 20 version, since the word for house/household is separated out from the rest. With the Deuteronomy 5 version, however, there's probably a greater case that it should be translated as house, meaning the actual dwelling. Here's how I'd translate the commandment:

"You shall not desire your neighbor's household: you shall not desire your neighbor's woman, nor his male slave, nor his female slave, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that belongs to your neighbor." (Ex. 20 version)

"You shall not lust after your neighbor's woman; nor shall you desire your neighbor's house, his land, his male slave, his female slave, his ox, his ass, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." (Deut. 5 version)

Of course, this is just my opinion. COGDEN 23:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Traditional sources"

In the section Written in Stone, we have:

Traditional belief is that the commandments were inscribed on two stone tablets, with three commandments on one tablet and seven on the other tablet.

What traditional belif is that? I can't find a source for this, and will remove it until someone can, discussing other options in its place. jnothman ^talk 23:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to assume its from the same tradition that believes all the God commandments were on one tablet, and all the people commandments were on the other. Different traditions number these differently, the protestants are, if I remember correctly, the ones who split the commandments so that there are 3 god commandments, and 7 people commandments, wheras Jews, again if I remember correctly, split it 5 god commandments, and 5 people commandments. --User talk:FDuffy 13:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, so then Traditional belief may be best replaced by Protestant belief but I would like a source before it goes back in there. jnothman ^talk 23:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Origins

The origins section seems to be typical late 19th century / early 20th century modernist claptrap. I think it should be replaced by a NPOV section on comparison between the 10 commandments and other ancient moral codes and maxims. There are legitimate statements that can be made regarding similarities with Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Ugaritic texts as well as regarding significant differences (only one God, no graven images) without simplistic nonsense that its all borrowed from Egyptian religion. Even Judaism recognizes that commandments in common with other cultures belong to the category of mishpatim i.e. common sense laws that one typically finds in any civilization. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I am sure that somewhere on Wikipedia, there is such a discussion with reference to not just the Ten Commandments, but rather the entire canon of biblical law. Finding it, on the other hand, is another matter (Mosaic law should be relvant, but isn't really). I'm not sure that a discussion here of the Ten Commandments law in isolation and that in other cultures is relevant without discussing the rest of the Torah law. I began a discussion of the form of the tablets with that used in treaty ritual in other Near Eastern cultures in the Written in stone section, and the form here, rather than the content, is very specific to the Ten Commandments and the discussion can't easily be generalised to the rest of the canon. jnothman ^talk 00:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Texts

There is no mention (yet) of OT Greek texts of the decalogue. The commandments are often quoted in the NT. There is room for expansion here. 23:00, 18 November 2005 (DAW)

this article covers the latter ...

A comment in the introduction that this article covers the Ethical Decalogue has been removed several times. I think it's appropriate that it cover the Ethical Decalogue, but in the interest of NPOV we shouldn't pretend that's the only possibility. We've debated this ad nauseum, but it wouldn't take much to make it NPOV:

1. Specify in the intro that the rest of the article will be concerned with the Ethical Decalogue;
2. In section 1, rephrase in a few places where it contradicts views that the Ritual Decalogue is a or the decalogue, or else relabel the section as 'Traditional conception'. As it is, it mixes up the accounts of the Ethical and Ritual Decalogues, without acknowledging that they both exist.

kwami 20:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Kwami. We have indeed debated this ad nauseam, and I'm reaching for my antiemetics. This article is about the Ten Commandments; the term "Ethical Decalogue" has only been created by those who insist there is a Ritual one as well. Hence, it's partisan terminology that should not need the coverage you insist on. The intro aknowledges very clearly that some postulate a Ritual Decalogue, and hence its existence as an entity. Any more would be giving undue coverage to this phenomenon (e.g. which bright people support the existence of the RD - that information does not belong here). JFW | T@lk 22:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it work to have an article called "the ten commandments issue/debate/scandal/appocoplyse" that summarizes these issues, and a sentence in the ten commandemnts article, like, "There is a difference in the scholarly understanding of the ten commandments and what is commonly accepted as such. This article deals with the commonly accepted notions, for further information, see the ten commandments _____

OR

have a subsection of this article, AT THE BOTTOM, since this article seems to be about the non-scholarly perception of the ten commandments

peace Sethie 23:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sethie, we could do that now with the Ritual Dec as the alt article.

JFW, the article is rather schizophrenic as it stands. We say, 'there is a decalogue X, and many postulate another. Here is what "it" says ...' with "it" meaning only X. We need to state that explicitly. And I'm not asking that we ever use the phrase 'Ethical Decalogue'; 'Ex20/Deut5' would be just fine. kwami 01:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Historic origins?

Notwithstanding the various confusion between Jews - Christians - Muslims etc about the articulation of the Commandments (statements).

There is very little in the article about the founding basis of the Commandments.

The Abrahamic religions founding father Abraham was borne in Ur, during the time of Semetic rulers (Babylonian rulers). In turn the early Semetic peoples used Sumerian writing and myths (See Genesis vs Gilgamesh). From the translation of many Sumerian texts, we find the origin of much of Abrahamic religions.

The commandments have their origin in older legal systems and are simply a reproduction of pre Abrahamic codes for the legal stabilisation (coalescence) of society.

It would be very worthwhile for a learned person to expand on this topic, because if "God" wrote the laws down, "He" was only copying them from Sumerian and Babylonian laws and in some part plagerising the Sumerian Pantheon. However, it is very interesting how the article informs that, even the followers of Abraham (or Abrahamic Religions) cant agree among themselves on what their "God" commanded them to do. No disrespect intended to the followers of those religions, but a profoundly obvious fact.

Very enlightning article, many thanks for taking the trouble to write it!

• Good Comment -What are the origins of Sumerian, Babylonian, and every other belief? If the Torah is of the One, then there is a simple explanation. From whose loins did all mankind descend? Adam was the original, and there is evidence that the Noahidic Laws were revealed to him, before we named them after Noah. After the Noahidic flood, mankind began once again, and the evidence is that the Law of God was restated, and renewed. Therefore, is there any question as to where the Sumerians, Babylonians, or the ancient Chinese understandings were derived? Everyone and every understanding descended from Adam, and then once again from Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japeth. Some understandings and/or names were confused or obfuscated over time, and yet all will be reconciled. --Kevin 01:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Translation of Exodus 34:28

On 13 December 2005, I translated Exodus 34:28 as "...and He wrote the words of the covenant upon the tablets - the ten statements." Later that day, Kwamikagami changed it to "... and he wrote...", with the comment that "'he' not normally capitalized when it refers to Moses".

We agree that 'he' is capitalized only when it refers to God. Our dispute is who the verse refers to.

I will begin by conceding that since this verse is spoken by the Narrator of the story, rather than being a quote from any of the story's characters, it can be taken as somewhat ambiguous (especially as compared to Deut. 10:4, which I'll cite below). I further concede that the first two "he"s of this verse certainly refer to Moses, and that many popular translations (including KJV, RSV, and JPS) also translate this third one as "he", uncapitalized.

Now I'd like to present the other view, that the first two "he"s of this verse refer to Moses, but that the third refers to God.

Namely, it is clear from Exodus 34:1 (God said to Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you shattered.") and from Deut. 10:3-4 (I ascended the mountain... and He wrote on the tablets..., where it is clearly Moses who is speaking) that it was God, not Moses, who wrote the words onto the second tablets.

This view is explained by many classical commentaries on Exodus 34:28, including Nahmanides, ibn Ezra, and Rashbam. Furthermore, although the Jewish Publication Society of America Version translation does use the lower-case "he", the commentary of the Soncino Press edition edited by Rabbi Abraham Cohen ([[2]]) corrects this to "He", and the ArtScroll edition has "He" in the translation text itself.

My personal feeling, based on all the above, is that if "the covenant" and "the ten statements" of this verse refer to the famous Ten Commandments of Exodus 20:2-14, then it must refer to God, and be translated as "He"; if one insists on translating it as "he", then it cannot refer to Ex. 20, but must refer to Moses writing the covenant of Exodus 34:10-26.

--Keeves 13:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The second set of commandments was dictated to Moses by G'd but written by Moses. Midrash. JFW | T@lk 14:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

PS please do not refer to the talkpage from the article. This falls under Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. JFW | T@lk 14:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted again. Keeves -- we shouldn't be linking to the talk page in any way, even if it's buried within the link. Additionally, the entire article is inconsistant in its capitalization of pronounce refering to deities. As it's an article dedicated to Judeo-Christian religion, I do not object at all to capitalizing pronouns refering to God, but please keep this in mind: such capitalization varys from person to person and is not a strict or consistant gramatical rule. ~CS 15:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I concede defeat. But consider this: Someday in the future, someone may come along and re-capitalize it, not realizing that the issue had already come up in the past. I think that there should be an active way of alerting people to this, without passively relying on them to look on that Talk page, and hoping that they see it if they do look. Oh, hey! I just figured out how to do that! This is what <!-- Comments --> are for! --Keeves 16:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate to reopen this debate, but when I saw this I was very surprised because considering the 11 miracles associated with the 1st set of tablets, that were NOT associated with the second, I always understood that it was the hand of G•d that the bible meant to imply as the actual author/creator of the tablets. Having read your arguments, I referred to the Hebrew and found something interesting in the language of Exodus 34:28. It does not actually refer to Moses by name at any point, as does almost every other passage. In fact, it translates closer to 'And there with G•d, 40 days and 40 nights for them there was no eating nor drinking of water and written on the tablets were the things of the ten things.' In neither Modern nor Ancient Hebrew does is there a "he" "writing" anything. If one must translate it with a "he" at all, it should likely be capitalized because when the bible says something was done, without referring to the personage responsible, the intention is that it was done through divine provenance. I admit that the Ancient Hebrew is almost always ambiguous when translated, and often ambiguous even when not, but this should be re-examined. Soch 09:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Hebrew is clear here in using the active form of the verb "vayiktov". This is certainly not "and written on the tablets were...", it clearly states that some "he", "He" or masculine "it" wrote upon the tablets. I have thus reverted the translation. jnothman ^talk 14:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"vayiktov" is a verb, but the text does not refer to the person/diety/whatever DOING the writing. By translating "And written..." I meant 'written' as an action that was occuring, but in a passive voice, not that it was already written there. The problem is that there is no way to distinguish between the two in english, even if you wrote "and it was written on the tablet..." that would still not convey the action of writing. Soch 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Links

Glad to see rationalrevolution linked! :) That particular article is really good. - FrancisTyers 17:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)