Are there two versions of the 10 commandments found in Exodus?

[Caroljeen]

Those of us who are Christians all know the original version of the 10 commandments was given by God to the nation of Israel from Mount Sinai in Exodus chapter 20. The people were shaken up after hearing the voice of God. "When all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they were afraid and trembled and stood at a distance, and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we will die...Then the people stood at a distance, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was."(Ex0 18-21) Moses stayed on the mountain with for forty days and nights. (Exo 24:18) During that time God gave to Moses additional laws besides the 10 commandments. "When God finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God."(Exo 31:8) NRSV

Here's a quick sketch of what was spoken by God on Mount Sinai and then written by the "finger of God" on the two tablets:

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol...You shall not bow down to them or worship them
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God
4. Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
10. You shall not covet...anything that belongs to your neighbor.

To my surprise I found out yesterday that there is a presumed other set of 10 commandments in Exodus chapter 34 which En Hakkore (Jonathan) pointed out to me. I started this thread so that he could explain to the me why he calls them a "substantially different set of "ten commandments"" and then we could discuss it. I'm not quite sure how to sketch out the 10 commandments in Exo 34. Jonathan, please show me what you are referring to... @En Hakkore

 

[En Hakkore]

Those of us who are Christians all know the original version of the 10 commandments was given by God to the nation of Israel from Mount Sinai in Exodus chapter 20. The people were shaken up after hearing the voice of God. "When all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the sound of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking, they were afraid and trembled and stood at a distance, and said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, or we will die...Then the people stood at a distance, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was."(Ex0 18-21) Moses stayed on the mountain with for forty days and nights. (Exo 24:18) During that time God gave to Moses additional laws besides the 10 commandments. "When God finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God."(Exo 31:8) NRSV

Here's a quick sketch of what was spoken by God on Mount Sinai and then written by the "finger of God" on the two tablets:

1. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol...You shall not bow down to them or worship them
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God
4. Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy
5. Honor your father and your mother
6. You shall not murder
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
10. You shall not covet...anything that belongs to your neighbor.

To my surprise I found out yesterday that there is a presumed other set of 10 commandments in Exodus chapter 34 which En Hakkore (Jonathan) pointed out to me. I started this thread so that he could explain to the me why he calls them a "substantially different set of "ten commandments"" and then we could discuss it. I'm not quite sure how to sketch out the 10 commandments in Exo 34. Jonathan, please show me what you are referring to... @En Hakkore

Sure, in Exod 34:28 it is claimed that Moses was with the Israelite deity, fasting for forty days and nights... pertinent is the last part: "And he {Moses!} wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." In the previous verse, Moses had been instructed by the deity to write "these words"... that is, those which the deity had just spoken and by which they were to be bound in covenant (cf. 34:10). Between these verses (34:11-26) is found a substantially different set of "ten commandments", though there are a few overlaps with the more familiar versions found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 (though even those have some minor differences). Similar to your own breakdown, which merges two commandments into one for #2, it is not entirely clear how one arrives at only ten, but what follows is one reasonable reconstruction of this decalogue's core (other arrangements are certainly possible) --- overlaps with the other versions are in bold:

1. You shall worship no other gods
2. You shall not make molten gods
3. All that first opens the womb is mine
4. You shall not appear before me empty-handed
5. Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest
6. Three times in the year all your males shall appear before me
7. You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven
8. You shall not leave the Passover sacrifice until morning
9. The best of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to my house
10. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk

Since there are no ethical guidelines, this version of the "ten commandments" is sometimes called the "cultic decalogue" or "ritual decalogue" since its focus is on ritual matters.

Linked below is an hour-long lecture by Michael Coogan on the broader subject of the "ten commandments" down through the ages given at the Harvard Museum of the Ancient Near East that you (and others) may find informative... he spends about five minutes on the subject of this version in Exodus 34 beginning at the 17:20 mark of the video.

I look forward to continuing discussion on the subject...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Lion IRC]

To my surprise I found out yesterday that there is a presumed other set of 10 commandments

Exodus 20:2-17 and Deut. 5:6-21

 

[Caroljeen]

Exodus 20:2-17 and Deut. 5:6-21

That was my first thought when En Hakkore mentioned two sets of the 10 commandments as well.

 

[Caroljeen]

Sure, in Exod 34:28 it is claimed that Moses was with the Israelite deity, fasting for forty days and nights... pertinent is the last part: "And he {Moses!} wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." In the previous verse, Moses had been instructed by the deity to write "these words"... that is, those which the deity had just spoken and by which they were to be bound in covenant (cf. 34:10).

In 34:1- 4 The Lord 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, which you broke. 2 Be ready in the morning, and come up in the morning to Mount Sinai and present yourself there to me, on the top of the mountain. ... 4 So Moses cut two tablets of stone like the former ones; and he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tablets of stone.

Then in verse 27-28 The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. 28 He was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

1. My understanding is a little different than yours. What I think is happening is that God wants the original 10 commandments written on the 2 new tablets and he wants Moses to "write these words" (the specific commandments he gave in Exo 34) with the rest of the laws that God gave to Moses after the giving of the original 10 commandments in the chapters between 21-33.

2. What I hadn't noticed before is that in verse 1 God said that he would write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets that Moses broke, but in verse 28 it is recorded that Moses wrote the ten commandments on the tablets.
In Deuteronomy where the whole story is retold by Moses to the nation of Israel after they had spent 40 years in the wilderness and were about to enter the promised land, in chapter 10 Moses again speaks of the writing of the second set of tablets and this time God wrote on the second set. I would reconcile this as an error in Exodus 34: 27-28 because Moses is speaking in the first person in the Deuteronomy account whereas in the Exodus account someone else seems to be narrating the story.

Deut 10: 1-4 At that time the Lord said to me, “Carve out two tablets of stone like the former ones, and come up to me on the mountain, and make an ark of wood. 2 I will write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets, which you smashed, and you shall put them in the ark.” 3 So I made an ark of acacia wood, cut two tablets of stone like the former ones, and went up the mountain with the two tablets in my hand. 4 Then he wrote on the tablets the same words as before, the ten commandments that the Lord had spoken to you on the mountain out of the fire on the day of the assembly; and the Lord gave them to me.

Between these verses (34:11-26) is found a substantially different set of "ten commandments", though there are a few overlaps with the more familiar versions found in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 (though even those have some minor differences). Similar to your own breakdown, which merges two commandments into one for #2, it is not entirely clear how one arrives at only ten, but what follows is one reasonable reconstruction of this decalogue's core (other arrangements are certainly possible) --- overlaps with the other versions are in bold:

1. You shall worship no other gods
2. You shall not make molten gods
3. All that first opens the womb is mine
4. You shall not appear before me empty-handed
5. Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest
6. Three times in the year all your males shall appear before me
7. You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven
8. You shall not leave the Passover sacrifice until morning
9. The best of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to my house
10. You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk

This set of 10 commandments is more different than it is similar but I recognize the other dissimilar commands as having been given to Moses elsewhere, possibly in the book of Exodus or Leviticus. I never thought of this section as being a new set of 10 commandments because it is so dissimilar.

Since there are no ethical guidelines, this version of the "ten commandments" is sometimes called the "cultic decalogue" or "ritual decalogue" since its focus is on ritual matters.

Of course, it has its own name. A name that sounds appropriate. Does that name come from the Jewish scholarly community or does it come from Biblical criticism like wiki says?

Linked below is an hour-long lecture by Michael Coogan on the broader subject of the "ten commandments" down through the ages given at the Harvard Museum of the Ancient Near East that you (and others) may find informative... he spends about five minutes on the subject of this version in Exodus 34 beginning at the 17:20 mark of the video.

I look forward to continuing discussion on the subject...

Thanks for the video. I will watch it later tonight or tomorrow. I have to finish my research on the dates and authors of the gospels first. My other research will be to check out the list of commandments in chap 34 that are dissimilar and see where else they are located in the Pentateuch. I'm hoping they will be between the time of Exo 20 and Exo 34.

 

[Caroljeen]

I watched the video. I didn't fall asleep. I'm thankful that Christians don't have to hold to the law of Moses and the first covenant. My favorite part of his presentation was when he quoted Paul that love is the fulfillment of the law. The changing of the ten commandments in different societies and times was interesting as well especially his comments on his Catholic catechism's version of the 10 commandments from his childhood in Baltimore.

As for Coogan's comments on Exo 34. I disagree with his speculation. He offers nothing to support it. Coogan states that the compiler of the Bible took advantage of the plot details of the broken tablets to insert yet another version (Exo 34) that was in circulation [How does Coogan know this?]. They were preserving ancient texts. [More speculation!] But not everyone agrees. [The mischief of the writers of the Pentateuch thickens.] The author of Deuteronomy tried to suppress this version (Exo 34) which he probably was familiar with which means that this version (Exo 34) may well be one of the oldest versions of the decalogue. [Smh]

Coogan proceeds with speculation upon speculation! I can make up a story as well but I won't because it wouldn't be true just as Coogan's story is not true but a fabrication of what might have happened. Is this how historical criticism works? He did mention shorter versions and expansions. Would you explain that to me further?

He concluded that the 3 different versions of the 10 commandments indicated that its text was not fixed in ancient Israel, it is not an immutable text, and the original decalogue can no longer be discovered. I need more than his word that any of his conclusions are true or even close to being true since he didn't support them at all. Why doesn't he support the original giving of the 10 commandments spoken by God with many witnesses? What about Jewish commentaries on the subject? I did find his commentary on the Deuteronomy version interesting and possibly true.

What do you think of the video?

[My commentary is in brackets.]

 

[En Hakkore]

My understanding is a little different than yours. What I think is happening is that God wants the original 10 commandments written on the 2 new tablets and he wants Moses to "write these words" (the specific commandments he gave in Exo 34) with the rest of the laws that God gave to Moses after the giving of the original 10 commandments in the chapters between 21-33.

The bold and underlined part above moves beyond what is asserted in the text (namely that Moses wrote the ten commandments) and further complicates an already complex literary tradition... as you spotted, there is a tension between Exod 34:1 and 34:28 --- the deity purposes to write the same words that were on the previous stone tablets on the new ones whereas Moses winds up writing a different set of ten commandments on them.

What I hadn't noticed before is that in verse 1 God said that he would write on the tablets the words that were on the former tablets that Moses broke, but in verse 28 it is recorded that Moses wrote the ten commandments on the tablets.
In Deuteronomy where the whole story is retold by Moses to the nation of Israel after they had spent 40 years in the wilderness and were about to enter the promised land, in chapter 10 Moses again speaks of the writing of the second set of tablets and this time God wrote on the second set. I would reconcile this as an error in Exodus 34: 27-28 because Moses is speaking in the first person in the Deuteronomy account whereas in the Exodus account someone else seems to be narrating the story.

The two words bold and underlined above are incompatible... one can either attempt to reconcile the contradiction between Exod 34:28 and Deut 10:4 (I don't recommend this) or acknowledge that they contradict each other --- the latter is implicit in your argument as to which you think is correct (Deuteronomy) and which you think is incorrect (Exodus). While the Deuteronomy version has Moses speaking in the first person, the book is punctuated by third person narration introducing his speech (ex. Deut 1:1-4; 4:44-5:1a) so differs from Exodus only in the ratio of third-person to first-person narration, both contain traditions about Moses so authenticity of one or the other cannot be determined in the manner suggested.

This set of 10 commandments is more different than it is similar but I recognize the other dissimilar commands as having been given to Moses elsewhere, possibly in the book of Exodus or Leviticus.

They are found in Exod 23:14-33.

Of course, it has its own name. A name that sounds appropriate. Does that name come from the Jewish scholarly community or does it come from Biblical criticism like wiki says?

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make between these two groups as Jewish scholars are numbered among historical critics... in any case, the terminology derives from and circulates among biblical scholars.

As for Coogan's comments on Exo 34. I disagree with his speculation. He offers nothing to support it. Coogan states that the compiler of the Bible took advantage of the plot details of the broken tablets to insert yet another version (Exo 34) that was in circulation [How does Coogan know this?]. They were preserving ancient texts. [More speculation!] But not everyone agrees. [The mischief of the writers of the Pentateuch thickens.] The author of Deuteronomy tried to suppress this version (Exo 34) which he probably was familiar with which means that this version (Exo 34) may well be one of the oldest versions of the decalogue.

Coogan proceeds with speculation upon speculation! I can make up a story as well but I won't because it wouldn't be true just as Coogan's story is not true but a fabrication of what might have happened. Is this how historical criticism works?

What Coogan is doing is attempting a historical reconstruction of how the various texts came to be based on the literary evidence... is it speculative? Sure, Coogan prefaces his claims with "I think" --- all such reconstructions are speculative because the evidence is, to small or large degrees, always incomplete and our sources don't always agree (for example the contradiction between Exod 34:38 and Deut 10:4)... we have to evaluate these conflicts, often choose between them (or reject both), and fill in the holes with something that is plausible --- this includes your own adjudication of the aforementioned contradiction, even if that reconstruction remains under theorized. Theories may be placed along a continuum with merely possible at one end and highly probable at the other.

He did mention shorter versions and expansions. Can you explain that to me further?

Sure, but let's return to this once the bigger picture issues above and below are fleshed out... then we can roll up sleeves and get into the nitty-gritty of the textual differences.

He concluded that the 3 different versions of the 10 commandments indicated that its text was not fixed in ancient Israel, it is not an immutable text, and the original decalogue can no longer be discovered. I need more than his word that any of his conclusions are true or even close to being true since he didn't support them at all. Why doesn't he support the original giving of the 10 commandments spoken by God with many witnesses?

Your question seems to assume an historical delivery of ten commandments by a deity at a mountain in the Sinai peninsula, which is something neither Coogan nor I accept --- Coogan dates the irrecoverable original decalogue to the late second millennium BCE (that is, a couple hundred years after the purported exodus event); I am not convinced it must have been premonarchic so would allow for an origin even later, perhaps early in the first millennium BCE. We will pursue the claim about the inability to recover the original wording of the decalogue as the thread progresses... for now, I'd like to focus on the more general conclusion that you seem to be challenging, namely that the text was not "fixed" in ancient Israel. It is unclear what your objection to this is since it flows naturally from the indisputable fact we have three different versions of it (two in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy) perserved in the Pentateuch.

What do you think of the video?

It is standard fare for a lecture within the academy... I agree with most of Coogan's position. In any case, I figured it would help propel our discussion --- and it would appear to have done that!

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

It is standard fare for a lecture within the academy... I agree with most of Coogan's position. In any case, I figured it would help propel our discussion --- and it would appear to have done that!

LOL, yeah, it did.

He is obviously very knowledgeable about the 10 commandments in history and societies over the last so many thousands of years. I really wanted to be more charitable toward his presentation and thought maybe it wasn't given to the "academy" but to a more general type of audience which prevented him from getting more into the weeds. I was really hoping that he had specific Jewish commentary on what their thoughts were on the Exo 34 version of The 10 and less speculation.

I'll come back to the rest of your response after I've looked up the dissimilar scriptures in the Exo 34 version.

 

[Caroljeen]

The bold and underlined part above moves beyond what is asserted in the text (namely that Moses wrote the ten commandments) and further complicates an already complex literary tradition...

It makes no sense. Why would God disregard his original 10 commandments in Exodus 20 given 40ish days earlier? And why would God make a new set of 10 commandments.

Please bear with me. I have to sort this out in my head.
Here's my recap of the story and a few comments and questions: It appears to be an orderly time progression from chapter 20 to chapter 34. The Israelites arrive at Mount Sinai after their departure from Egypt. God meets them and speaks to them from the top of the Mount Sinai and gives them 10 commandments. God then gave Moses ordinances (Ex 21:1) in Ex 21-23. In Ex 24 Moses told the people all the words of the Lord and all his ordinances and the people agreed to them. Then Moses wrote down the words of the covenant which he had spoken to the people. The next day Moses read the book of the covenant to the people and they agreed once again to abide by the covenant, and blood was sprinkled on the people from the animal sacrifices that had been dedicated to the Lord.

I'm going to stop here and make a comment. The last ordinances that Moses was given by God were from Ex 23. The majority of the ordinances from the Exo 34 "ten commandments" were found in Ex 23:14-19, except for one, #3. All that first opens the womb is mine. I found this in Exo 13: 2-15 where God gave Moses the instructions for the Passover. These were the last ordinances recorded before the book of the covenant was written and agreed to by the people. I wonder if that may be the reason that these ordinances were spoken by God in Ex 34.
This is bizarre. I've read through this many times but never noticed it. Thanks, Jonathan.

In Ex 24:12 The Lord said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain, and wait there; and I will give you the tablets of stone with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction.” Then Moses went up the mount to meet with God after the book of the covenant was agreed to and stayed there for 40 days and received instructions on the tabernacle and its courtyard, the priesthood and their garments and the law of the Sabbath day and the names of 2 men who would lead the construction of all of these things. Finally at the end of Ex 31:18 When God finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

I have a couple of questions: What exactly did God write on those 2 tablets? Was the "commandment" the ten given from Sinai and why is it not pleural? Or are the ten commandments being understood as one whole? Is the "law" the ordinances? Lastly did Moses include in the book of the covenant the 10 commandments spoken by God from Mt Sinai.

During the end of those 40 days there was murmuring in the camp about Moses' prolonged absence and the people looked for a new leader and a new God. Up on Mt Sinai, God lets Moses know what was happening at the camp. Moses sees the people having a party and worshipping the image that they had made. Moses throws down the tablets in anger and breaks them. After cleaning up the mess, Moses goes back up the to meet God on the mountain again and intercedes for the people with God. Then we come to chapter 34.

I'm reading this account from the NRSV. Do you agree with the Hebrew translation of Exo 34 in the NRSV? Especially verses 27-28

...as you spotted, there is a tension between Exod 34:1 and 34:28 --- the deity purposes to write the same words that were on the previous stone tablets on the new ones whereas Moses winds up writing a different set of ten commandments on them.

I did think that but now I'm not so sure if the original 10 commandments were included on the original stone tablets that were written by God.

The two words bold and underlined above are incompatible... one can either attempt to reconcile the contradiction between Exod 34:28 and Deut 10:4 (I don't recommend this) or acknowledge that they contradict each other --- the latter is implicit in your argument as to which you think is correct (Deuteronomy) and which you think is incorrect (Exodus).

Currently, I think that the "10 commandments" in Ex 34 are arbitrary and not the center piece of God's law and commandments. I'm wondering if those two tablets can actually fit the original 10 commandments and all of the ordinances that God gave to Moses in Ex 21-23, because of what God said in Ex 24:12. I doubt it.

While the Deuteronomy version has Moses speaking in the first person, the book is punctuated by third person narration introducing his speech (ex. Deut 1:1-4; 4:44-5:1a) so differs from Exodus only in the ratio of third-person to first-person narration, both contain traditions about Moses so authenticity of one or the other cannot be determined in the manner suggested.

Wow, that someone would know these things amazes me! What inspires scholars to get into the minutia like that?
Alright, I won't use Moses speaking in the first person as opposed to a narrator telling his story to indicate which 10 commandments should have more weight.

They are found in Exod 23:14-33.

I had to see it for myself but thanks for confirming.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make between these two groups as Jewish scholars are numbered among historical critics... in any case, the terminology derives from and circulates among biblical scholars.

Exodus has been around for quite some time. Certainly Ex 34 was known as a possible variant from antiquity. Aren't there any comments by the Israelite keepers of the law from earlier eras? I'm interested in what the Jews think of Ex 34. Not the modern Jews.

What Coogan is doing is attempting a historical reconstruction of how the various texts came to be based on the literary evidence... is it speculative? Sure, Coogan prefaces his claims with "I think" --- all such reconstructions are speculative because the evidence is, to small or large degrees, always incomplete and our sources don't always agree (for example the contradiction between Exod 34:38 and Deut 10:4)... we have to evaluate these conflicts, often choose between them (or reject both), and fill in the holes with something that is plausible --- this includes your own adjudication of the aforementioned contradiction, even if that reconstruction remains under theorized. Theories may be placed along a continuum with merely possible at one end and highly probable at the other.

I couldn't find Ex 34:38. You must mean 34:28.
Why use Ex 34 as the plausible 10 commandments? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Sounds like a squishy type of science. How do you test your theories?
I think Coogan's theory should not be at the highly probable end. Just saying...

Sure, but let's return to this once the bigger picture issues above and below are fleshed out... then we can roll up sleeves and get into the nitty-gritty of the textual differences.

Okay, let's go.

Your question seems to assume an historical delivery of ten commandments by a deity at a mountain in the Sinai peninsula, which is something neither Coogan nor I accept ---

Of course I assume that! I accept that you don't believe in the supernatural but I do.

Are there Christian critical biblical scholars like yourself and Coogan who do what you all do? If yes, do you know what they theorize about Ex 34? Would you mind sharing their theories?

Coogan dates the irrecoverable original decalogue to the late second millennium BCE (that is, a couple hundred years after the purported exodus event);

How is that possible if Moses wrote down the covenant from Mt Sinai?

I am not convinced it must have been premonarchic so would allow for an origin even later, perhaps early in the first millennium BCE. We will pursue the claim about the inability to recover the original wording of the decalogue as the thread progresses... for now, I'd like to focus on the more general conclusion that you seem to be challenging, namely that the text was not "fixed" in ancient Israel. It is unclear what your objection to this is since it flows naturally from the indisputable fact we have three different versions of it (two in Exodus and one in Deuteronomy) perserved in the Pentateuch.

Why wouldn't the text be fixed in ancient Israel even with 3 texts in the Pentateuch? The Jews left them in there even though they seem to contradict. What were their reasons? Do modern believing, professing Jews accept the 3 texts? Do they have an explanation for them?
Could we be misunderstanding the ancient writings and the ancient culture?
You seem to be very good at what you do, but I'm still skeptical.
Thanks for the discussion.

PS- I didn't finish my research on the dates and authors of the gospels because I spent so much time on this thread. I still have to finish with Strauss's book which I like the best of the 4 reference books I have even better than the Oxford guide by Metzger and Coogan.

 

[En Hakkore]

I'm going to stop here and make a comment. The last ordinances that Moses was given by God were from Ex 23. The majority of the ordinances from the Exo 34 "ten commandments" were found in Ex 23:14-19, except for one, #3. All that first opens the womb is mine. I found this in Exo 13: 2-15 where God gave Moses the instructions for the Passover. These were the last ordinances recorded before the book of the covenant was written and agreed to by the people. I wonder if that may be the reason that these ordinances were spoken by God in Ex 34.
This is bizarre. I've read through this many times but never noticed it. Thanks, Jonathan.

You're welcome... and I would encourage you to pursue the line of thought that I've bold and underlined above --- indeed, this overlap between the end of the "Book of the Covenant" and the ten words of the covenant in Exodus 34 is not a coincidence.

I have a couple of questions: What exactly did God write on those 2 tablets? Was the "commandment" the ten given from Sinai and why is it not pleural? Or are the ten commandments being understood as one whole? Is the "law" the ordinances? Lastly did Moses include in the book of the covenant the 10 commandments spoken by God from Mt Sinai.

All good questions... I've bold and underlined perhaps the most important one, the answer to which -- according to the book of Exodus -- is surprisingly not clear. Where do we get the idea that the words on the first set of tablets correspond to Exod 20:2-17 if not from the text of Exodus itself?

I'm reading this account from the NRSV. Do you agree with the Hebrew translation of Exo 34 in the NRSV? Especially verses 27-28

The NRSV is arguably the best English translation currently available... when I'm not providing my own renderings from the original languages, I am typically citing from the NRSV for this reason. With respect to Exod 34:27-28, I have no strong objections to the NRSV rendering, only a few minor quibbles that do not affect the meaning. Why do you ask?

I did think that but now I'm not so sure if the original 10 commandments were included on the original stone tablets that were written by God.

Reading Exodus, one cannot be sure... the idea comes from elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Once you've located it, what do you think is the literary relationship between the two traditions? Do writers typically take earlier texts that are clear and render them ambiguous in their own work or do they take ambiguous texts and render them with clarity?

Currently, I think that the "10 commandments" in Ex 34 are arbitrary and not the center piece of God's law and commandments. I'm wondering if those two tablets can actually fit the original 10 commandments and all of the ordinances that God gave to Moses in Ex 21-23, because of what God said in Ex 24:12. I doubt it.

I concur... something shorter than the "Book of the Covenant", with or without the "ten words" of Exodus 20, must be envisioned fitting onto two stone tablets that one could carry in their hands and fit inside the ark of the covenant.

Exodus has been around for quite some time. Certainly Ex 34 was known as a possible variant from antiquity. Aren't there any comments by the Israelite keepers of the law from earlier eras? I'm interested in what the Jews think of Ex 34. Not the modern Jews.

You may wish to pose this question on the Judaism forum as they would be better resources than I on the "ten commandments" in the rabbinic writings.

I couldn't find Ex 34:38. You must mean 34:28.

Oops, yes, 34:38 was a typo...

Why use Ex 34 as the plausible 10 commandments? It just doesn't make any sense to me.
Sounds like a squishy type of science. How do you test your theories?
I think Coogan's theory should not be at the highly probable end. Just saying...

I'm not quite following what you mean by Exodus 34 being "the plausible 10 commandments" --- it is, with respect to terminology, the only "ten words" in Exodus. As it regards Coogan's "theory", if we are talking about his speculation about why the compilers of the Pentateuch provided a second formulation of the ten commandments in this chapter (ie. exploiting the shattering of the first tablets), I'm inclined to agree with you, but I suspect for very different reasons. Are you familiar with the terms "synchronic" and "diachronic" as they are applied to reading texts?

Are there Christian critical biblical scholars like yourself and Coogan who do what you all do? If yes, do you know what they theorize about Ex 34? Would you mind sharing their theories?

Most critical biblical scholars are Christians or Jews... I'm not sure exactly what Coogan's beliefs are these days. Collectively, this group would affirm the general contours of what Coogan and I have outlined, however they might reconcile that with their theological beliefs, which tend to fall more on the progressive end of the spectrum than not. What you seem to be asking for are the views of Christians on the other end of the spectrum, more conservative or traditional, which is not literature I am that familiar with since they are a clique within the academy, rarely attending the conferences I do and publishing predominantly outside peer-reviewed circles. I looked up the passages in the indices of two "conservative" books I do have and that are peer reviewed, but neither of them have anything to say about this matter specifically.

How is that possible if Moses wrote down the covenant from Mt Sinai?

I don't think you'll find many critical biblical scholars who think that... I certainly don't, neither does Coogan.

Why wouldn't the text be fixed in ancient Israel even with 3 texts in the Pentateuch?

A fixed text, by definition, is one that doesn't change... at least not to the degree we find when comparing these three versions of the decalogue. The Pentateuch did not become "fixed" until the Second Temple period... even then there continued to be some large-scale scribal modifications (the Tabernacle texts of Exodus, for example).

The Jews left them in there even though they seem to contradict. What were their reasons?

"Jews" is an anachronistic term in the time period we are discussing... the correct term would be "ancient Israelites" --- scholars do not begin to speak of "Jews" until the post-exilic period, the inhabitants of the Persian province of Yehud and their kinfolk living in places like Babylon or Egypt. With respect to your question, Coogan's suggestion that they were interested in preserving traditions even where they conflicted with each other seems reasonable enough... Christians have done likewise by preserving a fourfold gospel tradition.

Do modern believing, professing Jews accept the 3 texts? Do they have an explanation for them?

This could accompany your question on the Judaism forum with respect to the rabbinic traditions.

Could we be misunderstanding the ancient writings and the ancient culture?

That's always a possibility.

You seem to be very good at what you do, but I'm still skeptical.
Thanks for the discussion.

You're welcome... nothing wrong with healthy skepticism!

PS- I didn't finish my research on the dates and authors of the gospels because I spent so much time on this thread. I still have to finish with Strauss's book which I like the best of the 4 reference books I have even better than the Oxford guide by Metzger and Coogan.

OK, one detailed thread at a time is sufficient... we can pick up on the gospel matters after this thread if we finish before March 1 or when I'm back in early June.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

You're welcome... and I would encourage you to pursue the line of thought that I've bold and underlined above --- indeed, this overlap between the end of the "Book of the Covenant" and the ten words of the covenant in Exodus 34 is not a coincidence.

I was wondering if you could help me with the Hebrew words that are translated into English as ordinances, commandments, and laws. Is each English word a different Hebrew word? Are the definitions the same for each word or is there a distinction between the three?
The words spoken by God on Sinai to the Israelites are known to us as the 10 commandments. I think that is a good description of them although Exodus as far I can see, doesn't attribute that to them. It doesn't call them laws or ordinances either.

I left off at Ex 34. I have a different sketch I want to set before you that deals with the two tablets and what might have been written on them.
In Ex 20, God spoke from Sinai to the Israelites what is commonly known as the 10 commandments. I'll call them the Ex 20 commandments.
In Ex 21:1, God said to Moses: These are the ordinances that you shall set before them:...(I didn't count them all but they fall into these categories in section headers in Biblegateway.com in the NRSV) The lawconcerning slaves, The lawconcerning violence, Laws concerning property, Laws of restitution, Social and religious laws, Justice for all, Sabbatical year and Sabbath, The annual festivals, and then God's warnings and promises. These Ordinances are found in Ex 21-23.
In Ex 24:3-4 Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” 4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. In Ex 24:7-8 Then he [Moses] took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.”
After the covenant was made between God and the Israelites, Moses went up the mountain to God again.
Ex 24:12 The Lord said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain, and wait there; and I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction.” These are the first 2 tablets. God had made the tablets and he had written on them himself. After this God gave Moses instructions on the tabernacle and its courtyard, the priesthood and their garments and the law of the Sabbath day and the names of 2 men who would lead the construction of all of these things. None of these were including in the Covenant book except the Sabbath day ordinances.
Exo 31:18 When God finished speaking with Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the covenant, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

To sum it up so far: This is my speculation about what was written on the first set of tablets that God wrote and gave to Moses from the account in Exodus. The Ex 20 commandments were not included in the ordinances found in Ex 21-23 because they were spoken by God to all of the people before God spoke the Ordinances from Ex 21-23 to Moses alone. In Ex 24 Moses told the people "all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances." The words of the Lord are different than the ordinances. "The words" are the Ex 20 commandments. "The ordinances" are the ordinances given in Ex 21-23. In Ex 24 if Moses told the people ALL of the words and the ordinances then that would include Ex 20 commandments. Which means that the book of the Covenant included both the Ex 20 commandments and the ordinances in Ex 21-23. The words that God wrote on the tablets are the "OG" 10 commandments from Ex 20, imo. It makes sense that God would use the first words/commandments that He spoke to the Israelites to write on the first tablets.

Moving onto to Ex 34...
Ex 32- 33 explain how and why Moses broke the first two tablets of the covenant that God had made and written on.
Ex 34: 1The Lord 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, which you broke...4 So Moses cut two tablets of stone like the former ones; and he rose early in the morning and went up on Mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tablets of stone.
It sounds like God is having Moses make two new tablets of stone to replace the ones that he had broken and that God is going to write on these 2 tables the same words that he had written on the former tablets that is the 10 commandments in Ex 20 given at Mt Sinai.
Then God said to Moses...I hereby make a covenant...Observe what I command you today. (Ex 34:10,11) The following verses 14-26 contain those commands.

Is God making a new covenant or renewing the covenant found in the book of the covenant? Ex 34:14-26 are the commandments that God speaks to Moses. They were the last ordinances (except for 1) spoken by God to Moses before the book of the covenant was written and approved in Ex 24. Did God save the best ordinances for last?
Now these former ordinances are referred to by God as commands. Why? Why not take the first 10 ordinances from Ex 21? Why not take one or two ordinances from each topic and make it more a representative of ALL the ordinances in Ex 21-23 than just taking the last ordinances listed in Ex 23. In Ex 34 the #3 command- All that first opens the womb is mine. I couldn't find in Ex 23. I found it in Ex 13: 2-15 where God gave Moses the instructions for the Passover. It is also found in Ex 22:29-30 The firstborn of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep... It's out of order from the other Ex 34 10 commandments that are found in Ex 23. Why would God do that?

Ex 34:27 The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.
Again it sounds like God is talking about the words in verses Ex 34:14-26 and not the 10 commandments from Ex 20 or the other ordinances in Ex 21-22. In the book of the Covenant Moses wrote ALL of the words of the Lord and All of the ordinances. (Ex 24: 3-4) Why wouldn't the Ex 20 commandments be included with the ALL? And why did God choose these 10 from all the ordinances that he spoke to Moses?
Exo 34:26... And he [Moses] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. Moses wrote the words on the 2 set of stone tablets not God. (Ex 34:1)

Sadly, I can't get passed the "write these words", " in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and Israel", and "Observe what I command you today". It is likely that Moses wrote the Ex 34 commands. Even though I think it is absurd to use this section of the ordinances as the centerpiece of God's law.

The easier explanation that wouldn't invoke so many questions in my mind but causes more grief to my soul is to just say that the 10 commandments in Ex 20 were not included in the book of the covenant. When you get to Exo 34, you could just say that the verses in Ex 34:14-26 must be and are the original 10 commandments on the first 2 tablets that Moses made and therefore were also written on the first 2 tablets that God made.

How arbitrary is that?! Compared to the Ex 20 commandments it doesn't make sense. Compared to all of the other ordinances it doesn't make sense.

All good questions... I've bold and underlined perhaps the most important one, the answer to which -- according to the book of Exodus -- is surprisingly not clear.

I'm still not satisfied with it!

Where do we get the idea that the words on the first set of tablets correspond to Exod 20:2-17 if not from the text of Exodus itself?

I did find a couple verses in Deuteronomy.

Deut 4:12-13 Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13 He declared to you his covenant, which he charged you to observe, that is, the ten commandments; and he wrote them on two stone tablets.

And perhaps from Jesus-- If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Matthew 19:17-19

I split the response because I had too many words.

 

[Caroljeen]

The NRSV is arguably the best English translation currently available... when I'm not providing my own renderings from the original languages, I am typically citing from the NRSV for this reason. With respect to Exod 34:27-28, I have no strong objections to the NRSV rendering, only a few minor quibbles that do not affect the meaning. Why do you ask?

I was wondering about verb tenses.

Reading Exodus, one cannot be sure... the idea comes from elsewhere in the Pentateuch. Once you've located it, what do you think is the literary relationship between the two traditions? Do writers typically take earlier texts that are clear and render them ambiguous in their own work or do they take ambiguous texts and render them with clarity?

It's only a guess on my part but the second choice...I assume they would render them with clarity. That's assuming the author wasn't Moses or Joshua.

You may wish to pose this question on the Judaism forum as they would be better resources than I on the "ten commandments" in the rabbinic writings.

I might. Depends on the how this discussion ends.

I'm not quite following what you mean by Exodus 34 being "the plausible 10 commandments" --- it is, with respect to terminology, the only "ten words" in Exodus.

So YOU say.

As it regards Coogan's "theory", if we are talking about his speculation about why the compilers of the Pentateuch provided a second formulation of the ten commandments in this chapter (ie. exploiting the shattering of the first tablets), I'm inclined to agree with you, but I suspect for very different reasons. Are you familiar with the terms "synchronic" and "diachronic" as they are applied to reading texts?

No, I could google them but I would rather read your definitions and explanation as to how they relate.

Most critical biblical scholars are Christians or Jews... I'm not sure exactly what Coogan's beliefs are these days. Collectively, this group would affirm the general contours of what Coogan and I have outlined, however they might reconcile that with their theological beliefs, which tend to fall more on the progressive end of the spectrum than not. What you seem to be asking for are the views of Christians on the other end of the spectrum, more conservative or traditional, which is not literature I am that familiar with since they are a clique within the academy, rarely attending the conferences I do and publishing predominantly outside peer-reviewed circles. I looked up the passages in the indices of two "conservative" books I do have and that are peer reviewed, but neither of them have anything to say about this matter specifically.

Thank you. Good to know. I'll find out soon enough. I checked out my bookshelves last night and found a few books about the OT to see how they resolve this specific subject. It will be disappointing if none of them address it.

I don't think you'll find many critical biblical scholars who think that... I certainly don't, neither does Coogan.

Why?

A fixed text, by definition, is one that doesn't change... at least not to the degree we find when comparing these three versions of the decalogue. The Pentateuch did not become "fixed" until the Second Temple period... even then there continued to be some large-scale scribal modifications (the Tabernacle texts of Exodus, for example)

Didn't the Jews at least have the law in their possession long before that? Even before they came into the promised land?

"Jews" is an anachronistic term in the time period we are discussing... the correct term would be "ancient Israelites" --- scholars do not begin to speak of "Jews" until the post-exilic period, the inhabitants of the Persian province of Yehud and their kinfolk living in places like Babylon or Egypt.

okay

With respect to your question, Coogan's suggestion that they were interested in preserving traditions even where they conflicted with each other seems reasonable enough... Christians have done likewise by preserving a fourfold gospel tradition.

Okay, I'm on the fence with this.

OK, one detailed thread at a time is sufficient... we can pick up on the gospel matters after this thread if we finish before March 1 or when I'm back in early June.

That sounds good to me!

I know you have a plan. You've been dropping crumbs for me along the way, kind of leading me in the direction you think I should go. I'm okay with that. The topic we are discussing is your bread and butter. It's what you're the expert at. It's what you do...and I'm sure I'm slowing you down to a snail's pace because this is very new to me. I feel like a novice with a book I've read from cover to cover many, many times. I'm sure my comments are not new, original or fresh to your ears. You've probably heard it all before. I appreciate your kindness.

I have a plan as well. After this post or the next, I'm going to start to consult some books I have on the OT. They have just been collecting dust on my bookshelves. Sailhamer-The Pentateuch as Narrative, The IVP Bible Background Commentary by Walton, Matthews, and Charvalas, Handbook on the Pentateuch by Hamilton, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary on the Old Testament by Walvoord and Zuck. I've never even looked inside of these books until now. I'm hopeful they will have some thoughts on this subject. Thanks to your prodding.
Last night I started reading Boyd's Inspired Imperfection: How the Bible's Problems Enhance its Divine Authority. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

 

[En Hakkore]

I was wondering if you could help me with the Hebrew words that are translated into English as ordinances, commandments, and laws. Is each English word a different Hebrew word? Are the definitions the same for each word or is there a distinction between the three?

The Hebrew word underlying "ordinance" is משפט (mishpat; pl. mishpatim), that underlying "commandment" is מצוה (mitsvah; pl. mitsvoth) and that underlying "law" is תורה (torah). Their sparing use outside the contents of what is typically referred to by scholars as the Covenant Code (Exodus 21-23) gives some indication of their differing nuances in context:

"...but showing steadfast love to the thousands loving me and keeping my mitsvoth." (Exod 20:6)
"Now these are the mishpatim that you will set before them..." (Exod 21:1)
And Moses went and announced to the people all the words of YHWH and all the mishpatim and all the people answered with one voice and said: "All the words that YHWH has spoken we will do!" (Exod 24:3)
And YHWH said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain, and wait there; and I will give to you the tablets of stone, and the torah and the mitsvah that I have written to instruct them." (Exod 24:12)

The contents of the Covenant Code are introduced as mishpatim (21:1) and summarized as such (24:3) --- the word occurs another three times within the code itself in reference to particular cases (21:9, 31; 23:6). It generally carries the idea of a judgment made on a particular matter... indeed, the bulk of the Covenant Code is comprised of case law, typically introduced with an "If this... then that" formula, punctuated by various commands and culminating with the rituals to be observed, both of which are cast primarily as the deity's words to his people (ex. 22:29b-30, which as you note functions as the equivalent within the Covenant Code for 34:19-20a). The entirety is framed by references to proper and improper worship (20:22-26; 23:20-33), the former of which lays outside both the "ten commandments", as they are typically designated, and the Covenant Code. This is important to understanding "the words of YHWH" in 24:3 in a less restrictive sense that the "ten commandments".

All three words derive from verbal roots that help draw out further distinctions as well as semantic overlap... mishpat comes from שפט (shapat), which means 'to judge', mitsvah comes from צוה (tsavah), which means 'to command', and torah comes from ירה (yarah), which means 'to instruct'. The latter two are quite close and appear in an aggregative sense as the contents of the stone tablets in 24:12, summarized by their purpose 'to instruct' (yes, the verb yarah is used here). While there are many mitsvoth in the Covenant Code (ie. the deity's admonitions rather than case law), their collection constitutes a unity, as would any summary thereof, which comes out in the singular form mitzvah associated with the content of the stone tablets, glossed by torah and bound together by the purpose of instruction. In other words, torah and mitsvah highlight two aspects of a singular body of admonitions, which are distinguished in context from the mishpatim with which they are interspersed. What is interesting is that reference to mitsvoth within the "ten commandments" assumes admonitions yet to be given or is entirely self-referential.

To sum it up so far: This is my speculation about what was written on the first set of tablets that God wrote and gave to Moses from the account in Exodus. The Ex 20 commandments were not included in the ordinances found in Ex 21-23 because they were spoken by God to all of the people before God spoke the Ordinances from Ex 21-23 to Moses alone. In Ex 24 Moses told the people "all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances." The words of the Lord are different than the ordinances. "The words" are the Ex 20 commandments. "The ordinances" are the ordinances given in Ex 21-23. In Ex 24 if Moses told the people ALL of the words and the ordinances then that would include Ex 20 commandments. Which means that the book of the Covenant included both the Ex 20 commandments and the ordinances in Ex 21-23. The words that God wrote on the tablets are the "OG" 10 commandments from Ex 20, imo. It makes sense that God would use the first words/commandments that He spoke to the Israelites to write on the first tablets.

Does your speculation change at all based on the analysis I provided above? I have challenged both the restrictive understanding of the deity's words and the categorization of the entire contents of Exodus 21-23 as "ordinances" (ie. mishpatim).

Is God making a new covenant or renewing the covenant found in the book of the covenant?

The answer depends on whether one views the words written on the two sets of tablets as being the same or different... if they are the same, then a renewal would seem to be in view; if they are different, then a new covenant would seem to be in view.

It is likely that Moses wrote the Ex 34 commands. Even though I think it is absurd to use this section of the ordinances as the centerpiece of God's law.

While laws concerning leaven, leftover sacrificial meat and how not to cook a kid might be somewhat distracting from a 21st-century perspective, as a whole these laws concern the proper worship of the Israelite deity (the Sabbath law for example is phrased in order to lead into the observance of two of the annual festivals), which is arguably central to ancient Israelite religion and particularly so after the debacle with the golden calf narrated in chapter 32.

The easier explanation that wouldn't invoke so many questions in my mind but causes more grief to my soul is to just say that the 10 commandments in Ex 20 were not included in the book of the covenant.

I would concur that they weren't... this doesn't grieve my soul, but I can appreciate your own reaction given the centrality of the "ten commandments" in later understandings of the Exodus narrative elsewhere in the Bible and down throughout history into contemporary popular culture.

I did find a couple verses in Deuteronomy.

Deut 4:12-13 Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice. 13 He declared to you his covenant, which he charged you to observe, that is, the ten commandments; and he wrote them on two stone tablets.

Yes... to the above I would add Deut 9:10, which claims that what was written on the stone tablets were "all the words that YHWH had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly" --- this is a reference to the contents of Exod 20:1-17, the divine words that follow were spoken only to Moses due to the people's fear and keeping their distance (20:21-22ff).

(to be continued due to character limitation)

 

[En Hakkore]

I was wondering about verb tenses.

There are seven verbs in these two verses... the second is an imperative and all the others are perfects or converted perfects --- I agree with the translators' choice of English tense in all six cases:

The LORD said to Moses: "Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." He was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments. (NRSV)

It's only a guess on my part but the second choice...I assume they would render them with clarity.

This is a good guess... and I wholeheartedly agree. This allows us to place the composition of the aforementioned Deuteronomy texts (4:13; 9:10) after the core composition of the arrival at Sinai in Exodus --- they are bringing clarity with their commentary on these earlier texts.

That's assuming the author wasn't Moses or Joshua.

Indeed... you'll find the vast majority of critical scholars understand that the various texts of the Pentateuch derive from hundreds of years after the purported time of Moses or Joshua. The point we are discussing can be marshalled in defense of such dating... eye witnesses would know what ostensibly happened --- such ambiguity as exists in Exodus on such an important point as what was written on the first stone tablets by the Israelite deity is unlikely to have derived from someone who was there to have seen what was on them before they were shattered (Moses or Joshua), it presents as the understandable ignorance of someone who doesn't know and is satisfied leaving it at that. The author(s) responsible for the texts in Deuteronomy, on the other hand, are not content with such ambiguity and make explicit claims about the content of both tablets, one of which at least (and possibly both) contradict(s) the account in Exodus.

So YOU say.

Yes, but that is based on the textual evidence... within the book of Exodus, only the pertinent content of chapter 34 is designated "the ten words". The pertinent content of chapter 20 is so designated only in Deuteronomy.

No, I could google them but I would rather read your definitions and explanation as to how they relate.

Sure... the terms come from Ferdinand De Saussure's study of language, "synchronic" referring to a language as it exists at a particular point in time, and "diachronic" referring to linguistic changes over time. These terms were subsequently applied to literature and cultural phenomena in general... it is the application of these approaches to the biblical text that is relevant in the present circumstances. Your approach thus far has been to approach Exodus synchronically... that is, reading it as a unified piece of literature that came into existence at a particular point in time. What I would suggest is to approach Exodus diachronically... that is, as a text that has undergone change over time. While this may seem a radical step, we've already begun to do this with respect to the Pentateuch as a whole... the ambiguity concerning the content of the first stone tablets in Exodus has been clarified by later writers in Deuteronomy --- this process involves a diachronic rather than synchronic approach to the Pentateuch. In applying this to the text of Exodus, take a look at 20:18-19... there is something very important missing from the summary of what the people saw and/or heard.

Why?

Briefly put, with the exception of a few archaic poems, the language of the Pentateuch reflects the form of Hebrew datable through epigraphic sources to the kingdom period of ancient Israel. It contains a number of anachronisms if it derived from the time of Moses and it reflects the concerns of a settled people rather than nomads wandering around the Sinai wilderness.

Didn't the Jews [sic] at least have the law in their possession long before that? Even before they came into the promised land?

While the narrative claims that to be the case, the evidence suggests otherwise (see above).

I know you have a plan. You've been dropping crumbs for me along the way, kind of leading me in the direction you think I should go. I'm okay with that. The topic we are discussing is your bread and butter. It's what you're the expert at. It's what you do...and I'm sure I'm slowing you down to a snail's pace because this is very new to me. I feel like a novice with a book I've read from cover to cover many, many times. I'm sure my comments are not new, original or fresh to your ears. You've probably heard it all before. I appreciate your kindness.

Condensing critical biblical scholarship down and packaging it for an unfamiliar lay audience is a skill, one I'm more than happy to practice. I don't have a plan per se... I mentioned multiple versions of the "ten commandments" in passing in another thread without any idea an entire thread would arise from it. Now that it has, I'm following the lead of your questions and suggesting things at certain points that I hope will lead to even more discoveries and questions. My end goal isn't to persuade you of my particular take on the conundrum involving the "ten commandments" (though you are welcome to if you so choose), but rather to stimulate your own learning about the subject and biblical texts generally... there is joy in discovery and I'm content to give a few pointers for your own journeys deeper into the texts, wherever they lead you and for whatever enriching purpose.

I have a plan as well. After this post or the next, I'm going to start to consult some books I have on the OT. They have just been collecting dust on my bookshelves. Sailhamer-The Pentateuch as Narrative, The IVP Bible Background Commentary by Walton, Matthews, and Charvalas, Handbook on the Pentateuch by Hamilton, and The Bible Knowledge Commentary on the Old Testament by Walvoord and Zuck. I've never even looked inside of these books until now. I'm hopeful they will have some thoughts on this subject. Thanks to your prodding.
Last night I started reading Boyd's Inspired Imperfection: How the Bible's Problems Enhance its Divine Authority. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!

You're welcome... with the exception of Boyd's book, those resources reflect a traditional/conservative Christian framework for understanding the Pentateuch or "Old Testament" generally. With respect to Boyd's book, the section on pages 5 and 6 in his first chapter are pertinent to the post-Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch and the diachronic approach I'm suggesting as a way forward in your understanding of the Exodus text...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

The answer depends on whether one views the words written on the two sets of tablets as being the same or different... if they are the same, then a renewal would seem to be in view; if they are different, then a new covenant would seem to be in view.

I'm limited on time so I'm skipping some of your comments that will take me longer to respond to when I have more time, likely this weekend.
I agree, but there could be another option, Exo 34: 1-26 could be a variant text.

I would concur that they weren't... this doesn't grieve my soul, but I can appreciate your own reaction given the centrality of the "ten commandments" in later understandings of the Exodus narrative elsewhere in the Bible and down throughout history into contemporary popular culture.

It doesn't grieve my soul in respect to contemporary popular culture at all.

Yes... to the above I would add Deut 9:10, which claims that what was written on the stone tablets were "all the words that YHWH had spoken to you on the mountain from the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly" --- this is a reference to the contents of Exod 20:1-17, the divine words that follow were spoken only to Moses due to the people's fear and keeping their distance (20:21-22ff).

Thank you for pointing that out. I haven't looked beyond Exodus to try to understand the significance of the commandments in Ex 34.
What about the verse below? I understand the Lord to be telling Moses to tell the people that they [the people] had heard his voice when he spoke to them the 10 commandments. I had noticed this after I read your posts yesterday. I had to go look it up for myself thinking my reading comprehension not so good.

Ex 20: 22 The Lord said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the Israelites: “You have seen for yourselves that I spoke with you from heaven.

 

[En Hakkore]

It doesn't grieve my soul in respect to contemporary popular culture at all.

Really? DeMille's 1956 remake of The Ten Commandments is a classic!

What about the verse below? I understand the Lord to be telling Moses to tell the people that they [the people] had heard his voice when he spoke to them the 10 commandments. I had noticed this after I read your posts yesterday. I had to go look it up for myself thinking my reading comprehension not so good.

Ex 20: 22 The Lord said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the Israelites: “You have seen for yourselves that I spoke with you from heaven.

This text does assume the content of at least 20:1, 4 though I'm not sure what you intend to demonstrate with this in the larger context of our discussion. Feel free to take your time in responding...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

This is a good guess... and I wholeheartedly agree. This allows us to place the composition of the aforementioned Deuteronomy texts (4:13; 9:10) after the core composition of the arrival at Sinai in Exodus --- they are bringing clarity with their commentary on these earlier texts.

Do you have a list of rules/guidelines that you follow as a historical bible critic that helps you in deciding these things? It sounds like you do.

Indeed... you'll find the vast majority of critical scholars understand that the various texts of the Pentateuch derive from hundreds of years after the purported time of Moses or Joshua. The point we are discussing can be marshalled in defense of such dating... eye witnesses would know what ostensibly happened --- such ambiguity as exists in Exodus on such an important point as what was written on the first stone tablets by the Israelite deity is unlikely to have derived from someone who was there to have seen what was on them before they were shattered (Moses or Joshua), it presents as the understandable ignorance of someone who doesn't know and is satisfied leaving it at that. The author(s) responsible for the texts in Deuteronomy, on the other hand, are not content with such ambiguity and make explicit claims about the content of both tablets, one of which at least (and possibly both) contradict(s) the account in Exodus.

Your point is well taken. Or it could be something else.

I having a difficult time believing that the Israelites from at least the time of the kings didn't have a copy of the Pentateuch in their possession. This story came to my mind. I didn't do a complete search.

1 Kings 22: 8 The high priest Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.”

Is the book of the law mean the book of the covenant or the entire Pentateuch?

While the narrative claims that to be the case, the evidence suggests otherwise (see above).

The author/s of Deuteronomy knew the things that was they wrote were true if they had been part of those who traveled with Moses during that 40 year stay in the wilderness. I'm surmising that the tribes of Israel weren't ignorant of what was written in the book of the covenant and that the priests were teaching the people during that time. (I don't have the time to search the Bible to back up my words.)

Yes, but that is based on the textual evidence... within the book of Exodus, only the pertinent content of chapter 34 is designated "the ten words". The pertinent content of chapter 20 is so designated only in Deuteronomy.

It's like harmonizing the gospels.

It contains a number of anachronisms if it derived from the time of Moses and it reflects the concerns of a settled people rather than nomads wandering around the Sinai wilderness.

Same question, Is the book of the law mean the book of the covenant or the entire Pentateuch?

Condensing critical biblical scholarship down and packaging it for an unfamiliar lay audience is a skill, one I'm more than happy to practice.

You're very good at it as well.

I don't have a plan per se... I mentioned multiple versions of the "ten commandments" in passing in another thread without any idea an entire thread would arise from it. Now that it has, I'm following the lead of your questions and suggesting things at certain points that I hope will lead to even more discoveries and questions. My end goal isn't to persuade you of my particular take on the conundrum involving the "ten commandments" (though you are welcome to if you so choose),

I would like to know your take on this conundrum.

but rather to stimulate your own learning about the subject and biblical texts generally... there is joy in discovery and I'm content to give a few pointers for your own journeys deeper into the texts, wherever they lead you and for whatever enriching purpose.

I've enjoyed the discussion. I truly appreciate it.
I've hit the wall before on something that I couldn't understand in the NT and spent over 5 years keeping it in tension until I did understand it to my satisfaction. As for this conundrum, I'll do the same. I'll pray for understanding and keep investigating. I'll hear out Boyd's thoughts on the matter in general and see what the more conservative scholarship has to say on the matter.
I've experienced the presence of God in different ways over and over again to know that he exists and he resembles Jesus. This Exodus problem doesn't shake me. It would have if it had happened early in my walk with the Lord.

Many thanks again.

[I had a difficult time restoring this response to my original text. There may still be things out of place]

 

[Caroljeen]

Really? DeMille's 1956 remake of The Ten Commandments is a classic!



This text does assume the content of at least 20:1, 4 though I'm not sure what you intend to demonstrate with this in the larger context of our discussion. Feel free to take your time in responding...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I watched it after I became a Christian and didn't like the Hollywood interpretation of the Bible.

"You have seen for yourselves that yourselves that I spoke with you from heaven" - I understand to mean that the Israelites saw only the dark cloud and actually heard the words that God spoke.

 

[En Hakkore]

Do you have a list of rules/guidelines that you follow as a historical bible critic that helps you in deciding these things? It sounds like you do.

The historical critical method consists of a number of 'tools' that scholars learn about, typically at the graduate level of our education... there is widespread agreement on what these are and how they should be used. Results can vary, however, due to the different starting assumptions of interpreters and the use of other methods in connection with them or sometimes in opposition to them (ie. post-modernist and radical reader-response criticisms).

Your point is well taken. Or it could be something else.

I having a difficult time believing that the Israelites from at least the time of the kings didn't have a copy of the Pentateuch in their possession. This story came to my mind. I didn't do a complete search.

1 Kings 22: 8 The high priest Hilkiah said to Shaphan the secretary, “I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.”

Is the book of the law mean the book of the covenant or the entire Pentateuch?

Most scholars understand this "book of the law" to be a reference to Deuteronomy rather than to the Pentateuch as a whole or to a section of Exodus... we can get into the reasons for that if you like, but we seem to be juggling quite a bit already.

I would like to know your take on this conundrum.

Have you had a chance to consider my question specific to what's missing from Exod 20:18-19 in light of a diachronic approach? Once that's identified, we're more or less in the home stretch...

I've enjoyed the discussion. I truly appreciate it.
I've hit the wall before on something that I couldn't understand in the NT and spent over 5 years keeping it in tension until I did understand it to my satisfaction. As for this conundrum, I'll do the same. I'll pray for understanding and keep investigating. I'll hear out Boyd's thoughts on the matter in general and see what the more conservative scholarship has to say on the matter.
I've experienced the presence of God in different ways over and over again to know that he exists and he resembles Jesus. This Exodus problem doesn't shake me. It would have if it had happened early in my walk with the Lord.

Many thanks again.

You're welcome... I am also enjoying the discussion.

I watched it after I became a Christian and didn't like the Hollywood interpretation of the Bible.

Fair enough... my earlier comments were offered from a film history perspective (another area I research and publish in) rather than constituting an evaluation of the merits or lack thereof with respect to the movie's fidelity to and/or interpretation of the biblical story.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[cjab]

I find the title of this discussion somewhat unenlightened. The context of Moses on Sinai was never just "the ten commandments" but the covenant with Israel that extended to much more than the ten commandments. May be what is portrayed by Hollywood etc. isn't the whole truth.

Isn't it that the ten commandments were only a subsidiary part of the "tablets of the Testimony?" They were inscribed on both sides, front and back, Ex 32:16, which suggests many more words than the ten commandments. Also Moses was on the mountain for a long time.

The precepts contained in Ex. 34 are, for the most part, "identical in substance with some of those which follow the Ten Commandments and are recorded in "the Book of the covenant" (Exodus 20-23; see Exodus 24:7)."

Please correct me if I'm wrong.