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

[En Hakkore]

Would that form of the text be the possible original text?

Possibly... but with hundreds of years of transmission, it is extremely unlikely, which is why textual critics have abandoned the pursuit of an "original" text altogether --- it is beyond our ability to reconstruct given what we know of scribal errors and evidence of alterations in the extant manuscript tradition.

Then historical and textual criticism are not the same.

Correct... textual criticism is a sub-discipline of historical criticism --- another way of looking at it would be that textual criticism is one of several tools available to the historical critic. In order to understand a particular text in its cultural and historical context (historical criticism), one must first establish what that text is (textual criticism).

Hmmm...is that because of its composite nature?

That is a large part of it... but even if the text in question was the work of a single author, there is still the lack of manuscript evidence reaching back to the purported time of the "original" which places reconstructing it out of our grasp.

But whoever wrote the story first, why then did people take the original and piecemeal other parts to it when it was strictly forbidden? Deut 4:2 Was it a common practice in antiquity of add and redact sacred books?

Yes, there is evidence for this both within the biblical tradition (in addition to the large-scale differences between MT, LXX and SP for a number of books there are the reworkings of Samuel and Kings in Chronicles and portions of early gospels incorporated into later ones in the New Testament) and outside the biblical tradition (the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example).

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

Possibly... but with hundreds of years of transmission, it is extremely unlikely, which is why textual critics have abandoned the pursuit of an "original" text altogether --- it is beyond our ability to reconstruct given what we know of scribal errors and evidence of alterations in the extant manuscript tradition.


Correct... textual criticism is a sub-discipline of historical criticism --- another way of looking at it would be that textual criticism is one of several tools available to the historical critic. In order to understand a particular text in its cultural and historical context (historical criticism), one must first establish what that text is (textual criticism).


That is a large part of it... but even if the text in question was the work of a single author, there is still the lack of manuscript evidence reaching back to the purported time of the "original" which places reconstructing it out of our grasp.


Yes, there is evidence for this both within the biblical tradition (in addition to the large-scale differences between MT, LXX and SP for a number of books there are the reworkings of Samuel and Kings in Chronicles and portions of early gospels incorporated into later ones in the New Testament) and outside the biblical tradition (the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example).

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Thank you, these responses were very helpful.

 

[Caroljeen]

This question assumes the idea of "original" text (see critique of it in my previous post), as well as widespread knowledge of the contents of scrolls copied and controlled by scribes... the latter is unlikely and the scribes responsible had no qualms about aggregating different traditions within an evolving anthology.

Did the scribes influence the story and the law or just the storyline? Not that I think it's right to do either but the if they influenced the law also, have they no fear of God?

A modern analog is unlikely to be fruitful in the present discussion... besides, I'm not an American and claim no expertise on the content of the documents you've named.

oh well

In short the Documentary Hypothesis postulates that the Pentateuch is comprised of four source documents -- the so-called Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly sources -- which form the acronym JEDP (or JEPD depending on the order one attributes to the latter two sources). Coogan embraces this theory of Pentateuchal origins and it is still widely taught in religious studies departments and seminaries around the world, at least as a starting point for discussion. An affordable introduction to the theory aimed at a lay audience is Richard Elliott Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible? reissued by Simon & Schuster in 2019. JEDP is far too simplistic to be a viable explanation for what's going on in the composition of the Pentateuch and I am among those scholars who critique it... the supplementary model I am articulating here would perhaps make more sense, however, if you were familiar with JEDP and its theoretical shortcomings.

I added it to my cart on Amazon. Friedman teaches the Documentary hypothesis which is based on four documents JEDP and your hypothesis is called the Supplementary hypothesis model? What is your model based on? Supplements as opposed to source documents?

My claim concerning the Exodus 20 decalogue being a later addition to the story does not imply I think the earlier story happened whereas the addition did not... I'm skeptical that any of it happened --- while I can appreciate that literary and historical questions are inextricably connected within your interpretive framework, they are quite distinct in mine. Just wanted to clarify that...

Fair enough.

Do you have compelling hypotheses as to why someone or more than one person might add the Ex 20 decalogue to an already written historical account if it wasn't there to begin with? Is the author(s)of Deuteronomy the prime suspect(s)?

That the deity and Moses would speak face to face is a claim made in Exodus (33:11), not Deuteronomy. At the conclusion of the latter book the tradition is revised to the deity knowing Moses face to face (34:10), which is a more ambiguous assertion and connected in the last two verses to the channeling of divine power.

I don't much of a see a difference or ambiguity in speaking face to face and knowing face to face. Is there some deeper meaning in the Hebrew that is not brought out in translation?

Not taking it literally certainly allows you to disregard the fire as a bridge between the mountaintop and the edge of the divine realm.

Not really, I'm don't feel like I'm disregarding his word. Maybe that how you imagine it in your mind, but I don't. I've never imagined the fire to be a bridge between the mountaintop and "the very heaven". Why does your interpretation which I highlighted sound totally foreign to me? Do you take these verses below and propose that the fire reached up to the heavens as a literal bridge for God's voice to travel along like a conduit and come out of the fire in order that God could remain transcendent?
Or is it simply Moses amplifying how high the flames went up from the mountain? I just don't see it as a transcendent thing since God's very presence has been with them in the pillar or cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night.

Deut 4:11 "you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain while the mountain was blazing up to the very heavens, shrouded in dark clouds. 12 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.
Deut 4:36 " From heaven he made you hear his voice to discipline you. On earth he showed you his great fire, while you heard his words coming out of the fire."

While the Deuteronomist writers may have conceived of the deity as invisible, which formed the basis for their iconoclasm, this is not the case in Exodus where Moses and others see him on the mountaintop (24:9-11).

God in one place visits the people speaking from a fire on a mountain with thunder, lightning, a thick cloud, smoke and in another place at a meal with a beautiful description of the pavement beneath his feet. Not transcendent but close and immanent.

Do you think that the form they saw is what God truly looks like? There are places throughout the OT where God has shown himself to people. Many times, he appears as a man called the angel of the Lord. I personally see these visitations of God as theophanies or temporary manifestations of God. As for seeing God in his very essence, I don't think it is possible because he is an invisible omnipresent spirit.

Ex 24: 10 they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.

To be continued...

 

[Caroljeen]

Part 2

You seem to be equating additional with spurious... the Exodus 20 decalogue is itself a summary of commands found scattered throughout the legal material in the Pentateuch or implied behind its case laws --- in my first post to this thread I noted that three of its commands are found in the so-called ritual decalogue and, by extension, the covenant code. Connections could be made for each of its remaining precepts... a succinct formulation is not false simply by coming later --- for example, the command to love the Israelite deity with all one's heart, soul and strength (Deut 6:5) does not come for another forty years in the chronology of the Pentateuch, yet it could hardly be argued that it is false on this basis alone.

Yes, I have been equating the additions, if that's what they truly are, as spurious. What is the basis then for finding something to be spurious?

You are operating with an idiosyncratic definition of additions if you do not consider "going into more depth" to be an addition.

Do you expect the story to be told exactly the same way with the same words each time it is told? Is that what happens in real life?

Everything I bolded above is what you are reading into the text... it actually doesn't say any of that, simply that they fear death if the deity should speak to them --- you don't see a problem precisely because you are reading that bolded material back into the text. If you read it for what it actually says, however, the problem is quite apparent.

If I read that vs 18-19 all by themselves, I see your point. But when I read them in the context of vs 1-17, what I said makes more sense.

Not yet... at least not in a synchronic reading of the Exodus story.

Then what does it matter if they hadn't yet been given the process 3 days for consecration? All they have to do is wash themselves and not have sex.

You are certainly welcome to pursue this line of thought... when there are two conflicting sections of text such as the Exodus 20 decalogue (let's call this text A) and the Exodus 34 decalogue (let's call this text B), either A or B could be secondary --- I've advanced arguments as to why A is secondary (for example, connecting Exod 19:16-19 with 20:18-21 as one continuous and sensible narrative stream); you would need to do something similar if you want to suggest B is secondary. While you infer that Exod 34:9 and following are "strangely out of place", where does the inserting material begin and end and is there the same cohesion as I've shown by extracting Exod 19:20-25 and Exod 20:1-17 as two different supplements?

I would like to try to do it but I'm exhausted right now. I'll try to do it, maybe not up to the standard of your presentation but my own feeble attempt, sometime later this week. Unless you think I'll fall flat on my face and would like to keep me from embarrassing myself. I'll think it will be interesting to at least try.

What about the possibility that the Exod 19:20-25 supplement is restricting access to the deity from the four named individuals and the seventy unnamed elders of Israel in Exodus 24 to just Moses and Aaron?

The time frames are different. The one in Ex 24 is after the signing of the covenant. Ex 19 is an earlier time in which there isn't an occasion to celebrate with a meal. No, I don't see it as a supplement restricting access to the deity. The circle became wider after the signing of the book of the Covenant.

I'm going to introduce the word conflation to our discussion. it refers to the merging of two (or more) traditions into one.

What does it suggest to you? addition, extension, supplement?

It is unclear whether the covenant of Exodus 34 is new or a renewal... we could, in conclusion, come full circle to Coogan's views in light of my summary above about JEDP --- he views Exodus 34 as the J version of the covenant and its version of the "ten commandments" and Exodus 20 (at least its earliest substratum, which claim we can delve into further) as the E version of the covenant and its version of the "ten commandments". That is, they refer to one and the same covenant that now have the appearance of being two separate and successive covenants only because they have been conflated by a redactor in an overarching story connected by the incident involving the golden calf.

That makes 20 commandments in one covenant?
If you don't believe the Ex 20 decalogue should be there, what would you do with the Deuteronomy accounts?

 

[Caroljeen]

You are operating with an idiosyncratic definition of additions if you do not consider "going into more depth" to be an addition.

It wouldn't be an addition if it was in the original writing is what I meant. In the original writing of Deuteronomy, more depth to the event in Exodus 20 was given. It wasn't an addition that was made later. Please let me know if I'm still misunderstanding what you mean by an addition to a text.

 

[En Hakkore]

Did the scribes influence the story and the law or just the storyline?

Both.

Friedman teaches the Documentary hypothesis which is based on four documents JEDP and your hypothesis is called the Supplementary hypothesis model? What is your model based on? Supplements as opposed to source documents?

Correct... allow me to illustrate the differences between the two theories and why I think the supplementary hypothesis better explains the evidence. Friedman, along with other proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis, postulate that two independent versions of the flood story have been spliced together in Genesis... as he claims on pg 60 of the book I recommended (at least in the 1997 edition I have): "{t}he two flood stories are separable and complete." He connects them with the purported J and P source documents... he attributes the instructions on building the ark (6:14-16) to the latter, which he believes was written during the reign of Hezekiah; J, on the other hand, he believes was written earlier, before the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians. He attributes the following clause in 7:1 to the J source: And Yahweh said to Noah, "Come, you and all your household, to the ark..."

There is a significant problem here in Friedman's reconstruction because 7:1 (J) mentions "the ark" introduced in the building instructions back in 6:14-16 (P) --- the source document that supposedly was written first refers back to a source document yet to be written! While it is possible that J had its own building instructions that were not included in the combined form of the text to avoid duplication, this moves even further into the realm of speculation and begs the question of why these same redactors left in other repetitions... in any case, Friedman's claim that the two flood stories are complete is, on this attempt to resolve the problem, incorrect.

A better solution is to abandon the idea of independent source documents altogether and understand the relationship as one of a base text and a supplement to it. Note that 7:1 continues in the next verse to specify seven pairs of clean animals and only two pairs of unclean animals... this seeks to elucidate the claim back in 6:19-20 about the pairs of animals to be brought onto the ark and to provide the animals to be used for sacrifices (8:20), itself a tandem supplement to furnish the story with a proper response by Noah after disembarking from the ark, without making those kinds extinct before they have a chance to reproduce and multiply.

Do you have compelling hypotheses as to why someone or more than one person might add the Ex 20 decalogue to an already written historical account if it wasn't there to begin with? Is the author(s)of Deuteronomy the prime suspect(s)?

I would say the Deuteronomist author(s) are not the prime suspects for two reasons: (1) their own version of the story attempts to work out the problem created by the insertion of 20:1-17 so the addition to the Exodus text was made before they wrote, and (2) the rationale for observing the Sabbath is one of the key differences between the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions of the 'traditional' decalogue (compare Exod 20:8-11 with Deut 5:12-15). In terms of a compelling hypothesis as to why someone might add the 'traditional' decalogue, I believe the disappointment you earlier expressed at the 'ritual' decalogue is the reason... a text is supplemented because it is thought inadequate in some way --- while the covenant code implies a number of ethical demands in the judgments of its case laws, they are not explicitly commanded, nor does the summary of the code in Exodus 34 highlight these dimensions. For these reasons, a prologue of sorts to the deity's directives was added to bring these ethical aspects to the forefront.

I don't much of a see a difference or ambiguity in speaking face to face and knowing face to face. Is there some deeper meaning in the Hebrew that is not brought out in translation?

No, my argument is based purely on the association of speaking face to face connected in Exod 33:11 to the manner in which a man speaks with his friend, which involves a physical encounter. While not directly pertinent to the theology of Exodus, the text of Num 12:8 is even more explicit by connecting this manner of communication to Moses seeing the deity's form whereas the other two gathered (Aaron and Miriam) see only the cloud pillar (note the conflict with Exodus 24 where Aaron, his sons and seventy elders are granted a glimpse of the deity). In Deut 34:10, the opposite move is made, namely to disassociate the relationship from physical proximity or visuals... knowing someone need not imply either of these whereas speaking does. Indeed, this can be shown by the deployment of the 'face to face' clause in Deut 5:4 in reference to the deity speaking to the Israelites collectively... but note the inclusion of the clarification "on the mountain from the midst of the fire" and, in the following verse, Moses standing between them --- there is proximity and a visual, but of fire rather than the deity himself.

Not really, I'm don't feel like I'm disregarding his word. Maybe that how you imagine it in your mind, but I don't. I've never imagined the fire to be a bridge between the mountaintop and "the very heaven". Why does your interpretation which I highlighted sound totally foreign to me? Do you take these verses below and propose that the fire reached up to the heavens as a literal bridge for God's voice to travel along like a conduit and come out of the fire in order that God could remain transcendent?

Yes... the repeated emphasis on the fire whenever the deity communicates and lack of descent terminology in conjunction with a literal reading of the text demand this understanding. The only reason to suggest otherwise is to achieve harmony with the Exodus tradition of a deity physically present on the mountain.

I just don't see it as a transcendent thing since God's very presence has been with them in the pillar or cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night.

This tradition is indeed embraced by the Deuteronomists (1:33), but the form of a pillar (cf. 31:15) is compatible with their transcendent theology since this structure typically implies its use to support an upper structure... in this case, meeting up with the solid dome barrier between the earthly and heavenly realms --- the deity interacts using the pillars of fire and cloud as conduits, as you like to call them, that connect with his abode rather than a physical descent, which it should be noted even in Exodus is restricted to the mountaintop.

Do you think that the form they saw is what God truly looks like? There are places throughout the OT where God has shown himself to people. Many times, he appears as a man called the angel of the Lord. I personally see these visitations of God as theophanies or temporary manifestations of God. As for seeing God in his very essence, I don't think it is possible because he is an invisible omnipresent spirit.

With respect to your first question, since I remain agnostic about the existence of a deity (or deities or extra-dimensional beings), I cannot answer it. Your last comment is probably the position of the Deuteronomists. In the middle you raise the matter of the "angel of the Lord", which is important to our discussion about the differing theologies between the two books... this figure appears in the flames of the bush burning but not consumed by fire (Exod 3:2). The "angel of God" travels with the Israelites and appears to be distinguished from the cloud pillar in 14:19. Other references to the sending forth of an "angel" appear to be additional mentions of this figure (23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2). Again, the book of Exodus reinforces the idea of a deity present with his people, if not directly himself, then through a physical representative from the divine realm. This figure is predictably absent from Deuteronomy... you will search high and low for any reference to an "angel" in the book, but not find it --- the concept is anathema to them.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[En Hakkore]

Yes, I have been equating the additions, if that's what they truly are, as spurious. What is the basis then for finding something to be spurious?

The word implies something that is fake... supplementary information is not necessarily fake. While it could be, some other criterion would need to be invoked to draw this conclusion. Consider the analogy of the Bible as a whole... it was continually added to over the course of centuries --- if one adopts a 'traditional' outlook this would see the books of Moses supplemented by prophetic books written during the kingdom period supplemented by books written during the post-exilic period supplemented by gospels and letters written in the first century. These additions to the biblical canon do not, in and of themselves, constitute something spurious. Hopefully this analogy is helpful in understanding a similar growth over time of the individual books themselves...

Do you expect the story to be told exactly the same way with the same words each time it is told? Is that what happens in real life?

No... but when portions of the story drop from the telling or new details appear they are correctly identified as omissions and additions.

If I read that vs 18-19 all by themselves, I see your point. But when I read them in the context of vs 1-17, what I said makes more sense.

I am not suggesting that Exod 20:18-19 be read all by themselves, but in conjunction with 19:16-19 as part of a continuous text... the intervening material (19:20-25 and 20:1-17) is intrusive to this narrative and evidence of their secondary nature --- the latter does not provide sensible context for Exod 20:18-19, which is precisely why the Deuteornomist are forced to elaborate in order to make sense of it. The only way the Exodus text can make sense on a synchronic reading is to read the expanded version of the story found in Deuteronomy back into it, which is to ignore what the earlier text is actually saying.

Then what does it matter if they hadn't yet been given the process 3 days for consecration? All they have to do is wash themselves and not have sex.

The consecration process for the people according to Exod 19:10 takes place over two days... if the point of the supplementary section (19:20-25) is to put the priests on par with the people (which I agree that it does), then they would also need to wash and abstain from sexual relations for two days in order to be ready, but they are already at the foot of the mountain on the third day when the instruction comes... its placement is clumsy since they cannot wash right there in any case or go back in time if they happened to have slept with their wife the night before.

I would like to try to do it but I'm exhausted right now. I'll try to do it, maybe not up to the standard of your presentation but my own feeble attempt, sometime later this week. Unless you think I'll fall flat on my face and would like to keep me from embarrassing myself. I'll think it will be interesting to at least try.

I'm sure your presentation will be just fine and I look forward to seeing it...

The time frames are different. The one in Ex 24 is after the signing of the covenant. Ex 19 is an earlier time in which there isn't an occasion to celebrate with a meal. No, I don't see it as a supplement restricting access to the deity. The circle became wider after the signing of the book of the Covenant.

With respect to the time frames... the instructions refer to one and the same encounter on the mountain, which does not take place until after the covenant is made. If you posit two different meetings, the first is nowhere narrated, which creates another problem that needs to be resolved. With respect to either restricting or expanding access to the deity, you are correct that the knife could slice either way... the question is which way is consistent with the overall trajectory of the Pentateuch --- what is the fate, for example, of Nadab and Abihu? And could the supplement have that story in mind when it eliminates them from the invitation to see the deity?

What does it suggest to you? addition, extension, supplement?

Yes, since these words can be used interchangeably and this is the literary model I think best explains the evidence... while I doubt the existence of continuous parallel source documents being spliced together (ie. the Documentary Hypothesis), I am not opposed to the supplements being based on competing oral traditions.

That makes 20 commandments in one covenant?

No, because in the composite form of the story they now refer to two different covenants... the first has been broken and either renewed or supplanted by the second.

If you don't believe the Ex 20 decalogue should be there, what would you do with the Deuteronomy accounts?

I'm not sure what you mean by "do with the Deuteronomy accounts" or even the idea that I "believe the Ex 20 decalogue should [not] be there" --- both texts exist and a diachronic analysis explains the anomalies and how they got to this stage. That is where I stop... I don't feel I need to do anything beyond this such as harmonize the accounts or embrace a putative earliest-recoverable form of the story as authentic and reject everything else as inauthentic. The text exists, flaws and contradictions intact... just like people! Boyd's book, that you are (still?) reading, suggests one strategy of what you might do with these "imperfections" while holding onto the Bible as being inspired and authoritative.

It wouldn't be an addition if it was in the original writing is what I meant. In the original writing of Deuteronomy, more depth to the event in Exodus 20 was given. It wasn't an addition that was made later. Please let me know if I'm still misunderstanding what you mean by an addition to a text.

This helps clarify, thank you... I think we both just need to be mindful of the context in which we use the word "addition" --- in reference to Exodus itself, it refers to additions to the text itself whereas in reference to Deuteronomy's engagements with Exodus, it refers to additions to the story. Does that distinction make sense?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

Both.

This is irritating if true.

Correct... allow me to illustrate the differences between the two theories and why I think the supplementary hypothesis better explains the evidence. Friedman, along with other proponents of the Documentary Hypothesis, postulate that two independent versions of the flood story have been spliced together in Genesis... as he claims on pg 60 of the book I recommended (at least in the 1997 edition I have): "{t}he two flood stories are separable and complete." He connects them with the purported J and P source documents... he attributes the instructions on building the ark (6:14-16) to the latter, which he believes was written during the reign of Hezekiah; J, on the other hand, he believes was written earlier, before the northern kingdom fell to the Assyrians. He attributes the following clause in 7:1 to the J source: And Yahweh said to Noah, "Come, you and all your household, to the ark..."

There is a significant problem here in Friedman's reconstruction because 7:1 (J) mentions "the ark" introduced in the building instructions back in 6:14-16 (P) --- the source document that supposedly was written first refers back to a source document yet to be written! While it is possible that J had its own building instructions that were not included in the combined form of the text to avoid duplication, this moves even further into the realm of speculation and begs the question of why these same redactors left in other repetitions... in any case, Friedman's claim that the two flood stories are complete is, on this attempt to resolve the problem, incorrect.

A better solution is to abandon the idea of independent source documents altogether and understand the relationship as one of a base text and a supplement to it. Note that 7:1 continues in the next verse to specify seven pairs of clean animals and only two pairs of unclean animals... this seeks to elucidate the claim back in 6:19-20 about the pairs of animals to be brought onto the ark and to provide the animals to be used for sacrifices (8:20), itself a tandem supplement to furnish the story with a proper response by Noah after disembarking from the ark, without making those kinds extinct before they have a chance to reproduce and multiply.

Is the supplement you suggest for the flood story 7: 1-6? or just 7:2-3?

Why don't you use the supplement theory for the NT?

I would say the Deuteronomist author(s) are not the prime suspects for two reasons: (1) their own version of the story attempts to work out the problem created by the insertion of 20:1-17 so the addition to the Exodus text was made before they wrote, and (2) the rationale for observing the Sabbath is one of the key differences between the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions of the 'traditional' decalogue (compare Exod 20:8-11 with Deut 5:12-15). In terms of a compelling hypothesis as to why someone might add the 'traditional' decalogue, I believe the disappointment you earlier expressed at the 'ritual' decalogue is the reason... a text is supplemented because it is thought inadequate in some way --- while the covenant code implies a number of ethical demands in the judgments of its case laws, they are not explicitly commanded, nor does the summary of the code in Exodus 34 highlight these dimensions. For these reasons, a prologue of sorts to the deity's directives was added to bring these ethical aspects to the forefront.

That means in your theory/hypothesis there were Israelites who felt it was okay to add to the Pentateuch in direct disobedience to God's command not to. I find it difficult to believe that someone would do that for whatever the reason.

The Israelites must have had a strong oral transmission of their sacred stories. Why wouldn't all of this fooling around with story of Moses and the Exodus be recognized?

One more question, if the creators of the Exodus 20 decalogue were so clever in forming it and slipping it into the story, then why didn't they take out the ritual decalogue at the same time? The ritual decalogue was already a part of the covenant code. Who would notice that it was gone? And why cause confusion (two decalogues) as opposed to clarity?

No, my argument is based purely on the association of speaking face to face connected in Exod 33:11 to the manner in which a man speaks with his friend, which involves a physical encounter.

I never thought of this as a physical encounter. The presence of God was there with Moses not the actual appearance.
Ex 33:20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live.”

While not directly pertinent to the theology of Exodus, the text of Num 12:8 is even more explicit by connecting this manner of communication to Moses seeing the deity's form whereas the other two gathered (Aaron and Miriam) see only the cloud pillar (note the conflict with Exodus 24 where Aaron, his sons and seventy elders are granted a glimpse of the deity). In Deut 34:10, the opposite move is made, namely to disassociate the relationship from physical proximity or visuals... knowing someone need not imply either of these whereas speaking does. Indeed, this can be shown by the deployment of the 'face to face' clause in Deut 5:4 in reference to the deity speaking to the Israelites collectively... but note the inclusion of the clarification "on the mountain from the midst of the fire" and, in the following verse, Moses standing between them --- there is proximity and a visual, but of fire rather than the deity himself.

How do you know that Moses beheld God's form all of the time he was with God on the mountain? or in the Tabernacle? Are you reading too much into it?

Yes... the repeated emphasis on the fire whenever the deity communicates and lack of descent terminology in conjunction with a literal reading of the text demand this understanding. The only reason to suggest otherwise is to achieve harmony with the Exodus tradition of a deity physically present on the mountain.

I'll have to look at those passages again. The fire as a conduit for God's voice to travel from the sky to the mountain top I think is stretching a "literal" meaning. The more literal reading would be that God spoke from the fire that was on the mountain.

This tradition is indeed embraced by the Deuteronomists (1:33), but the form of a pillar (cf. 31:15) is compatible with their transcendent theology since this structure typically implies its use to support an upper structure... in this case, meeting up with the solid dome barrier between the earthly and heavenly realms --- the deity interacts using the pillars of fire and cloud as conduits, as you like to call them, that connect with his abode rather than a physical descent, which it should be noted even in Exodus is restricted to the mountaintop.

No, the pillar of fire and cloud were not set structures but moved and led the people in the wilderness. They were first noted in Exodus 13 not Deuteronomy. They weren't conduits. They represented the very presence of God. I don't think we can agree on this.

Exodus 13:21 The Lord went in front of them in a pillar of cloud by day, to lead them along the way, and in a pillar of fire by night, to give them light, so that they might travel by day and by night.
Deuteronomy 31:15 and the Lord appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud; the pillar of cloud stood at the entrance to the tent.

With respect to your first question, since I remain agnostic about the existence of a deity (or deities or extra-dimensional beings), I cannot answer it. Your last comment is probably the position of the Deuteronomists. In the middle you raise the matter of the "angel of the Lord", which is important to our discussion about the differing theologies between the two books... this figure appears in the flames of the bush burning but not consumed by fire (Exod 3:2). The "angel of God" travels with the Israelites and appears to be distinguished from the cloud pillar in 14:19. Other references to the sending forth of an "angel" appear to be additional mentions of this figure (23:20, 23; 32:34; 33:2). Again, the book of Exodus reinforces the idea of a deity present with his people, if not directly himself, then through a physical representative from the divine realm. This figure is predictably absent from Deuteronomy... you will search high and low for any reference to an "angel" in the book, but not find it --- the concept is anathema to them.

Interesting. Why do you think that is?

 

[Caroljeen]

The word implies something that is fake... supplementary information is not necessarily fake. While it could be, some other criterion would need to be invoked to draw this conclusion. Consider the analogy of the Bible as a whole... it was continually added to over the course of centuries --- if one adopts a 'traditional' outlook this would see the books of Moses supplemented by prophetic books written during the kingdom period supplemented by books written during the post-exilic period supplemented by gospels and letters written in the first century. These additions to the biblical canon do not, in and of themselves, constitute something spurious. Hopefully this analogy is helpful in understanding a similar growth over time of the individual books themselves...

Somewhat helpful.

No... but when portions of the story drop from the telling or new details appear they are correctly identified as omissions and additions.

And they are not necessarily spurious? For instance, the retelling of the Ex 20 decalogue in Deut 5.

I am not suggesting that Exod 20:18-19 be read all by themselves, but in conjunction with 19:16-19 as part of a continuous text... the intervening material (19:20-25 and 20:1-17) is intrusive to this narrative and evidence of their secondary nature --- the latter does not provide sensible context for Exod 20:18-19, which is precisely why the Deuteornomist are forced to elaborate in order to make sense of it. The only way the Exodus text can make sense on a synchronic reading is to read the expanded version of the story found in Deuteronomy back into it, which is to ignore what the earlier text is actually saying.

I agree that Exodus 19: 20-25 seems intrusive.

The consecration process for the people according to Exod 19:10 takes place over two days... if the point of the supplementary section (19:20-25) is to put the priests on par with the people (which I agree that it does), then they would also need to wash and abstain from sexual relations for two days in order to be ready, but they are already at the foot of the mountain on the third day when the instruction comes... its placement is clumsy since they cannot wash right there in any case or go back in time if they happened to have slept with their wife the night before.

I agree. But shouldn't an addition make things clear and less convoluted?

I'm sure your presentation will be just fine and I look forward to seeing it...

To you "it ain't no thang" because you've obviously done this before. If it's "just fine", I will be content it that.

With respect to the time frames... the instructions refer to one and the same encounter on the mountain, which does not take place until after the covenant is made. If you posit two different meetings, the first is nowhere narrated, which creates another problem that needs to be resolved. With respect to either restricting or expanding access to the deity, you are correct that the knife could slice either way... the question is which way is consistent with the overall trajectory of the Pentateuch --- what is the fate, for example, of Nadab and Abihu? And could the supplement have that story in mind when it eliminates them from the invitation to see the deity?

I still think that they are 2 different encounters. I'll address this in my presentation.

Yes, since these words can be used interchangeably and this is the literary model I think best explains the evidence... while I doubt the existence of continuous parallel source documents being spliced together (ie. the Documentary Hypothesis), I am not opposed to the supplements being based on competing oral traditions.

okay

I'm not sure what you mean by "do with the Deuteronomy accounts" or even the idea that I "believe the Ex 20 decalogue should [not] be there" --- both texts exist and a diachronic analysis explains the anomalies and how they got to this stage. That is where I stop... I don't feel I need to do anything beyond this such as harmonize the accounts or embrace a putative earliest-recoverable form of the story as authentic and reject everything else as inauthentic. The text exists, flaws and contradictions intact... just like people!

That's cool.

Boyd's book, that you are (still?) reading, suggests one strategy of what you might do with these "imperfections" while holding onto the Bible as being inspired and authoritative.

yes, I'm still reading Boyd's book. I read it before lying in bed so I don't usually get too far before I fall asleep! I like reading about his struggles with different things and how slowly he works through them. I finished chapter 4.

Don't tell me anything!!

This helps clarify, thank you... I think we both just need to be mindful of the context in which we use the word "addition" --- in reference to Exodus itself, it refers to additions to the text itself whereas in reference to Deuteronomy's engagements with Exodus, it refers to additions to the story. Does that distinction make sense?

Sort of.

 

[Caroljeen]

I would like to preface this reconstruction of Exodus 34 by saying that it felt very strange for me to tamper with words of the Bible. But I found it incredulous to think that the ritual decalogue in Ex 34:17-26, which seems so mundane and redundant being already written in the book of the covenant by Moses, should be the original and only decalogue and that the Ex 20 decalogue was a supplement/addition.

This purely speculative reconstruction of Ex 34 is what I think might have been if the original Ex 34 decalogue had not been tampered with and the ritual decalogue supplemented in its place. In other words, I’m restoring the Ex 34 decalogue to its original form before it was tampered with. In doing so, I’m showing you what I meant when I responded to you in post #55 of this thread, “If Ex 20 [decalogue] is left intact then Ex 34:1 and the Deuteronomy retelling would be in sync. The only thing out of sync is the ritual decalogue and Moses chipping away at the new set of tablets.”

Exodus 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. 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. 3 No one shall come up with you, and do not let anyone be seen throughout all the mountain; and do not let flocks or herds graze in front of that 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. 5 The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name, “The Lord.” 6 The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed,

“The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness.” * And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped. 9 He said, “If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.”

10 He said: I hereby make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform marvels, such as have not been performed in all the earth or in any nation; and all the people among whom you live shall see the work of the Lord; for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.

11 Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 12 Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you. 13 You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles * 15 You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice. 16 And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods.

* 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.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

*28 And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

29 Moses came down from Mount Sinai. As he came down from the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. 30 When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, the skin of his face was shining, and they were afraid to come near him. 31 But Moses called to them; and Aaron and all the leaders of the congregation returned to him, and Moses spoke with them. 32Afterward all the Israelites came near, and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. 33 When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face; 34 but whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he would take the veil off, until he came out; and when he came out, and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, 35 The Israelites would see the face of Moses, that the skin of his face was shining; and Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with him

Part 1

 

[Caroljeen]

Part 2

Where you see a red * are the portions of Ex 34 that I thought were additions to the text and were removed.

*Ex 34: 17-26 The ritual decalogue was removed because of its supplementary nature. It was repetitious and completely superfluous given its existence in the book of the covenant in which it is contained and where it has its rightful place. It was lifted out of the covenantal code arbitrarily, almost en bloc, and added to the story in a jarring way that leaves the reader perplexed and befuddled.

*Ex 34: 7, 14, 27, 28a were removed also.

Vs 7 and 14 These verses were redundant as they were duplicates to portion of the Ex 20 decalogue and removed.

Vs 27, 28a These verses were removed because they were in conflict with verse 1. God had planned to write the original decalogue from Ex 20 on the new tablets that Moses had made as he had done with the first set of tablets in chapter 31:18. The supplement/addition to Ex 34 changed the text to say that Moses wrote the decalogue on the two new tablets that he had made.

“This covenant” that God is speaking of in vs 10 is the same covenant that God is speaking of in Ex 19:5 and refers to the Ex 20 decalogue.

Now with my proposed restoration of Ex 34 there is also a continuity with the story that is retold by Moses in Deuteronomy 4-5

Thank you, En Hakkore, for explaining what you do and allowing me to try to do the same.

 

[En Hakkore]

Is the supplement you suggest for the flood story 7: 1-6? or just 7:2-3?

There are a number of supplements in the flood story, but to delineate them all and defend those identifications would take us too far afield... a subject for another time perhaps. Briefly, as it relates to the supplement I did make reference to, its contents are 7:1-10 with two primary objectives: (1) to distinguish between the number of clean and unclean animals to be brought onto the ark (verses 2-3, 8-9) and (2) to allot a period of seven days for embarking (verses 4 and 10), which offsets the implausible claim of the original story that they all entered the ark on the very same day the floodwaters came (see verses 11, 13-16).

Why don't you use the supplement theory for the NT?

Its literature, by and large, does not suggest such a process of composition or compilation... that said, the story of the woman caught in adultery and the ending of Mark are supplements of sorts and 2 Corinthians is a pastiche of several Pauline letters. It should also be pointed out that not all books in the Hebrew Bible were composed through an accretion of sections... books such as Ruth and Chronicles are self-contained narratives and the work of single authors.

That means in your theory/hypothesis there were Israelites who felt it was okay to add to the Pentateuch in direct disobedience to God's command not to. I find it difficult to believe that someone would do that for whatever the reason.

While you may find it difficult to believe, there is hard evidence that it occurred in the text tradition now found in the Samaritan Pentateuch... since it may be assumed that the community who transmitted this text reverenced it, exploring the reasons why they did so and apparently did not feel it violated any prohibitions therein (I assume you refer to texts such as Deut 4:2 and 12:32) would be the next step. Are these texts referring to the Pentateuch as a written document?

The Israelites must have had a strong oral transmission of their sacred stories. Why wouldn't all of this fooling around with story of Moses and the Exodus be recognized?

Who is to say it wasn't? Furthermore, oral transmission also includes accretions and changes in detail so their presence in the written versions would, to an extent, reflect these... the texts were, in any case, produced by and controlled by scribal elites --- if the monarchy produced a version of their history that differed from that which preceded, what would the masses do about it? What is left to posterity are the texts...

One more question, if the creators of the Exodus 20 decalogue were so clever in forming it and slipping it into the story, then why didn't they take out the ritual decalogue at the same time? The ritual decalogue was already a part of the covenant code. Who would notice that it was gone? And why cause confusion (two decalogues) as opposed to clarity?

But the content of Exod 20:1-17 is not presented as the decalogue or even a decalogue... in Exodus there is only one decalogue, that of 34:17-26 --- there is no confusion on this matter when the book of Exodus is read on its own. It is the Deuteronomists who refer to Exod 20:1-17 as the (one and only) decalogue (4:13; 10:4) and within that corpus there is no confusion either. Confusion only arises when the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy are compared to each other... one cannot blame the compilers of Exodus for what the Deuteronomists would later do with their tradition (ie. revise and attempt to supplant it).

I never thought of this as a physical encounter. The presence of God was there with Moses not the actual appearance.
Ex 33:20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face; for no one shall see me and live.”

How do you know that Moses beheld God's form all of the time he was with God on the mountain? or in the Tabernacle? Are you reading too much into it?

That Moses saw the deity on the mountaintop according to the Exodus tradition is all I've advanced... how often or for what duration are specifics the writers do not supply so one can only speculate.

I'll have to look at those passages again. The fire as a conduit for God's voice to travel from the sky to the mountain top I think is stretching a "literal" meaning. The more literal reading would be that God spoke from the fire that was on the mountain.


No, the pillar of fire and cloud were not set structures but moved and led the people in the wilderness. They were first noted in Exodus 13 not Deuteronomy. They weren't conduits. They represented the very presence of God. I don't think we can agree on this.

Then we shall have to agree to disagree... I am appealing to the image of a pillar as standing between two spheres --- the human realm on earth and the divine realm at the boundary in the sky --- without suggesting that the ones in question (of cloud and of fire) remained stationary. Indeed, they move according to the text (I referenced Deuteronomy rather than Exodus because the former corpus was the context of the claim I was making), but they are still envisioned as straddling the space between the two spheres.

Interesting. Why do you think that is?

The concept of angels is anathema to the Deuteronomists because of their association with manifestations of the Israelite deity... part of the religious program outlined in Deuteronomy is centralization of worship --- the text repeatedly commands the Israelites on this matter:

But you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes as his habitation to put his name there... (12:5)

when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place that he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. (31:11)

Above are the first and last examples of this 'centralization formula' in Deuteronomy (the others are found in 12:11,14,18,21,26; 14:23;24,25; 15:20; 16:2,6,7,11,15,16; 17:8,10; 18:6 and 26:2). Where "the place that the LORD your God will choose" (or "has chosen" according to variants throughout) is left ambiguous... when Deuteronomy was used as a program for religious reform during the reign of Josiah, this was interpreted as Jerusalem --- other places of worshipping the Israelite deity were condemned and there is archaeological evidence he was worshipped elsewhere and that he was associated with places other than Jerusalem. For example, the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions make reference to "YHWH of Samaria" and "YHWH of Teman", which associates the deity with these particular locales. The well-known central tenet of Judaism that "YHWH our God, YHWH is one" comes from Deuteronomy (6:4) and while it is now understood as a profession of monotheism, its wording actually consolidates the myriad manifestations of the deity at local shrines into one who appears only at the central sanctuary (then at Jerusalem). It is for this reason that angels, which were interpreted to be manifestations of the Israelite deity that could appear anywhere and particularly at sites regarded as sacred, were rejected by the Deuteronomists.

And they are not necessarily spurious? For instance, the retelling of the Ex 20 decalogue in Deut 5.

I'll leave that for you to determine since I do not consider the biblical text sacred.

I agree. But shouldn't an addition make things clear and less convoluted?

In theory, yes, but mistakes happen!

I still think that they are 2 different encounters. I'll address this in my presentation.

Thanks for your subsequent posts and presentation... I will respond to it within the next couple of days.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

While you may find it difficult to believe, there is hard evidence that it occurred in the text tradition now found in the Samaritan Pentateuch... since it may be assumed that the community who transmitted this text reverenced it, exploring the reasons why they did so and apparently did not feel it violated any prohibitions therein (I assume you refer to texts such as Deut 4:2 and 12:32) would be the next step. Are these texts referring to the Pentateuch as a written document?

Is the SP considered sacred by the Jews? Perhaps an incorrect assumption on my part.

Who is to say it wasn't? Furthermore, oral transmission also includes accretions and changes in detail so their presence in the written versions would, to an extent, reflect these... the texts were, in any case, produced by and controlled by scribal elites

How do you know that oral transmission includes changes?

--- if the monarchy produced a version of their history that differed from that which preceded, what would the masses do about it? What is left to posterity are the texts...

I never thought of the monarchy doing something like that except for the evil kings who rejected YHWH. Wouldn't it be easier to destroy everything related to YHWH? No need to answer. Just speculating out loud.

But the content of Exod 20:1-17 is not presented as the decalogue or even a decalogue... in Exodus there is only one decalogue, that of 34:17-26 --- there is no confusion on this matter when the book of Exodus is read on its own. It is the Deuteronomists who refer to Exod 20:1-17 as the (one and only) decalogue (4:13; 10:4) and within that corpus there is no confusion either. Confusion only arises when the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy are compared to each other... one cannot blame the compilers of Exodus for what the Deuteronomists would later do with their tradition (ie. revise and attempt to supplant it).

You wrote earlier that you do not believe the authors of deuteronomy supplemented Exodus with Ex 20:1-17. That it was placed there earlier before the writing of Deuteronomy. Do you have a presumed time period between the Ex 20:1-17 supplement and the writing of Deuteronomy?

Then we shall have to agree to disagree... I am appealing to the image of a pillar as standing between two spheres --- the human realm on earth and the divine realm at the boundary in the sky --- without suggesting that the ones in question (of cloud and of fire) remained stationary. Indeed, they move according to the text (I referenced Deuteronomy rather than Exodus because the former corpus was the context of the claim I was making), but they are still envisioned as straddling the space between the two spheres.

We will have to agree to disagree.

The concept of angels is anathema to the Deuteronomists because of their association with manifestations of the Israelite deity... part of the religious program outlined in Deuteronomy is centralization of worship --- the text repeatedly commands the Israelites on this matter:

But you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes as his habitation to put his name there... (12:5)

when all Israel comes to appear before the LORD your God at the place that he will choose, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. (31:11)

Above are the first and last examples of this 'centralization formula' in Deuteronomy (the others are found in 12:11,14,18,21,26; 14:23;24,25; 15:20; 16:2,6,7,11,15,16; 17:8,10; 18:6 and 26:2). Where "the place that the LORD your God will choose" (or "has chosen" according to variants throughout) is left ambiguous... when Deuteronomy was used as a program for religious reform during the reign of Josiah, this was interpreted as Jerusalem --- other places of worshipping the Israelite deity were condemned and there is archaeological evidence he was worshipped elsewhere and that he was associated with places other than Jerusalem. For example, the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions make reference to "YHWH of Samaria" and "YHWH of Teman", which associates the deity with these particular locales. The well-known central tenet of Judaism that "YHWH our God, YHWH is one" comes from Deuteronomy (6:4) and while it is now understood as a profession of monotheism, its wording actually consolidates the myriad manifestations of the deity at local shrines into one who appears only at the central sanctuary (then at Jerusalem). It is for this reason that angels, which were interpreted to be manifestations of the Israelite deity that could appear anywhere and particularly at sites regarded as sacred, were rejected by the Deuteronomists.

That there were shrines to YHWH elsewhere does not surprise me considering the stories in the book of Judges and the frequent apostasies of the Israelites as nation and then a divided nation.

In theory, yes, but mistakes happen!

Do those mistakes put into question your historical critical method processes for identifying suspect contradictions?

Thanks for your subsequent posts and presentation... I will respond to it within the next couple of days.

Thank you and no rush.

 

[Caroljeen]

But the content of Exod 20:1-17 is not presented as the decalogue or even a decalogue... in Exodus there is only one decalogue, that of 34:17-26 --- there is no confusion on this matter when the book of Exodus is read on its own. It is the Deuteronomists who refer to Exod 20:1-17 as the (one and only) decalogue (4:13; 10:4) and within that corpus there is no confusion either. Confusion only arises when the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy are compared to each other... one cannot blame the compilers of Exodus for what the Deuteronomists would later do with their tradition (ie. revise and attempt to supplant it).

Of all the things we have discussed in this thread, this is the most important to me. My faith in God and in his Son Jesus isn't affected by these apparent contradictory accounts. But my view of the Bible has changed. I'm not done with Boyd's book. I will ramp up my reading of it after this thread is complete...a couple of days?

 

[Caroljeen]

Part 2

Where you see a red * are the portions of Ex 34 that I thought were additions to the text and were removed.

Jonathan, I'm not sure why the red highlight on the * was removed when I pasted the Word documents. Unfortunately I can't fix it now.

 

[En Hakkore]

Jonathan, I'm not sure why the red highlight on the * was removed when I pasted the Word documents. Unfortunately I can't fix it now.

No worries... hopefully you don't mind that I've taken the liberty of reproducing your text below and color-coding it along with the three alleged additions reinserted as a visual aid to subsequent discussion. Before I proceed with a response, are you able to confirm I have correctly understood your reconstruction:

The red text represents the original wording of the chapter that still exists in the extant version of Exodus in the Masoretic Text
The bold blue text also represents the original wording of the chapter, but this portion was subsequently removed and replaced with 17-26 as it now exists in our copies
The bold purple text represents alleged additions to the text (ie. not original to the text even though they are now in our extant copies)

Is that a fair summary of your claims concerning the chapter?

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Exodus 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. 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. 3 No one shall come up with you, and do not let anyone be seen throughout all the mountain; and do not let flocks or herds graze in front of that 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. 5 The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name, “The Lord.” 6 The Lord passed before him, and proclaimed,

“The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation."

8 And Moses quickly bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped. 9 He said, “If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, I pray, let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us for your inheritance.”

10 He said: I hereby make a covenant. Before all your people I will perform marvels, such as have not been performed in all the earth or in any nation; and all the people among whom you live shall see the work of the Lord; for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you.

11 Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 12 Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you. 13 You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles 14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God). 15 You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice. 16 And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods.

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.

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it.

Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

27 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.

29 Moses came down from Mount Sinai. As he came down from the mountain with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand, Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone because he had been talking with God. 30 When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, the skin of his face was shining, and they were afraid to come near him. 31 But Moses called to them; and Aaron and all the leaders of the congregation returned to him, and Moses spoke with them. 32 Afterward all the Israelites came near, and he gave them in commandment all that the Lord had spoken with him on Mount Sinai. 33 When Moses had finished speaking with them, he put a veil on his face; 34 but whenever Moses went in before the Lord to speak with him, he would take the veil off, until he came out; and when he came out, and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, 35 the Israelites would see the face of Moses, that the skin of his face was shining; and Moses would put the veil on his face again, until he went in to speak with him

 

[Caroljeen]

No worries... hopefully you don't mind that I've taken the liberty of reproducing your text below and color-coding it along with the three alleged additions reinserted as a visual aid to subsequent discussion. Before I proceed with a response, are you able to confirm I have correctly understood your reconstruction:

The red text represents the original wording of the chapter that still exists in the extant version of Exodus in the Masoretic Text
The bold blue text also represents the original wording of the chapter, but this portion was subsequently removed and replaced with 17-26 as it now exists in our copies
The bold purple text represents alleged additions to the text (ie. not original to the text even though they are now in our extant copies)

Is that a fair summary of your claims concerning the chapter?

Yes, that looks correct but why leave the portions bolded in purple in? Is this reconstruction what you expected I would do? You also left out all of my comments and introduction.

 

[En Hakkore]

Yes, that looks correct but why leave the portions bolded in purple in?

I reinserted them but distinguished from the rest of the text so as I might get a sense of the overall chapter as the later editor was ostensibly creating it.

Is this reconstruction what you expected I would do?

Yes, generally speaking... though I could not (and did not want to) anticipate the specifics.

You also left out all of my comments and introduction.

Oh, not to worry, I will circle back to them... I just wanted confirmation I understood your reconstruction accurately before engaging with them.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[En Hakkore]

Is the SP considered sacred by the Jews? Perhaps an incorrect assumption on my part.

No, it is not... though it is held sacred by the Samaritan community.

How do you know that oral transmission includes changes?

On the evidence collected by scholars who study oral transmission in cultures with high levels of residual orality rather than textual production... for example, tape recording stories orally-transmitted at different points of time and comparing them. Walter Ong's Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (Routledge, 2002) would be a good place to start in exploring these and related issues...

You wrote earlier that you do not believe the authors of deuteronomy supplemented Exodus with Ex 20:1-17. That it was placed there earlier before the writing of Deuteronomy. Do you have a presumed time period between the Ex 20:1-17 supplement and the writing of Deuteronomy?

Sure, the author of Exod 20:1-17 knows and quotes from the creation account (compare its Sabbath command with Gen 1:1-2:3), which reflects a monolatrous conception of the Israelite deity... this theology took hold in Israelite religion following the surprising failure of Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem (701 BCE). I date most of the preamble material of Deuteronomy (chs 1-11) to the reign of Josiah (ie. late 7th century BCE) so there is an approximately 75-year window during which the text of Exodus 20 could have been supplemented in the manner I've suggested... I would hesitate to narrow it down any further than this though I suspect it was earlier (ie. first part of the 7th century BCE) rather than later and closer to the time the Deuteronomists were writing.

We will have to agree to disagree.

OK.

Do those mistakes put into question your historical critical method processes for identifying suspect contradictions?

No, assuming by "contradictions" you mean conflicts that arise by the incorporation of secondary material... that authors and editors can and do make mistakes is factored into the method --- there are enough additions both evident from the text-critical data and conjectured that are in the correct place vis-à-vis the underlying narratives to use their telltale signs to identify sections whose placement is otherwise jarring, which can serve as additional evidence of their secondary nature.

Of all the things we have discussed in this thread, this is the most important to me. My faith in God and in his Son Jesus isn't affected by these apparent contradictory accounts. But my view of the Bible has changed. I'm not done with Boyd's book. I will ramp up my reading of it after this thread is complete...a couple of days?

Yes... by this time next weekend, we'll have to be winding things down and exchanging our farewells --- though I will be back in June and I hope you will still be participating here so we can continue dialogue.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

Yes... by this time next weekend, we'll have to be winding things down and exchanging our farewells --- though I will be back in June and I hope you will still be participating here so we can continue dialogue.

Thanks for answering all of my questions. I'm not sure about being here in June but you have made my current time on CARM extremely interesting.