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

[En Hakkore]

I want to say 1250, but I'd have to go back and watch that section again.

OK, circa. 1250 would put you in good company... ie. it is the consensus view of scholarship. While I reject a mass exodus and any supernatural elements, I have no strong objections to a thirteenth-century BCE dating for the escape of some slaves from Egypt who later joined with disenfranchised peoples in Canaan to form the entity now known as 'Israel' by the time of Merneptah.

Yes. Why is he even trying to find a way to make the numbers work?

He's not... he rejects the numbers as later embellishments to the story by the writers of E and P.

Is he Jewish?

Yes, he is.

Everyone isn't like you in that you find something contradictory and then your work is done. You don't try to do anything else with it.

Neither does Friedman... he sees J and E as competing (ie. contradictory) histories of the southern and northern kingdoms respectively brought together when refugees from conquered Israel fled south to Judah. He then views P as an alternative (ie. contradictory) history to this and D as an alternative (ie. contradictory) history to P --- he also lets the contradictions stand without attempting to harmonize them. There isn't anyone in contemporary mainstream academia who would take a different approach... harmonization is a theologically-driven agenda that takes place outside of and often in opposition to critical scholarship.

He's entertaining. I bet his students like him.

Yes... though he may have given me a D (pun very much intended) for challenging the Documentary Hypothesis!

He needs a little spray to hold his hair in place. It was a little distracting from his presentation.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

This is a good example of the second shortcoming I noted above... you have articulated that you think Exod 34:27-28a was a supplement to the chapter and thus removed it in your reconstruction, but you haven't provided a reason why a scribe would have added these comments in the first place. Indeed, why would a scribe introduce such a flagrant conflict as this, transferring authorship of the words on the stone tablets from the deity over to Moses? Stripping the deity of such agency is highly unlikely as motivation for deliberate scribal intervention into the story...

I know when you use the word "indeed" you are about to make a strong point. And you have.

I didn't even think of giving reasons why. I'm glad you pointed that out. But of course, I have to speculate why the scribe would not only supplement those words but the entire ritual decalogue just as you speculated why someone would insert the ethical decalogue in Ex 20.

The scribe removed the ethical decalogue from Ex 34 because he found the covenantal code more aesthetically pleasing in its legalistic structure and more significant and binding because it was a blood covenant unlike the covenant introduced on Sinai. He was behaving just as rogue as who ever might have supplemented the ethical supplement in Ex 20 (as you suppose).

Just as Moses wrote the covenantal code, Moses should also be the one to write this new covenant (the ritual decalogue). He had to add the strong imperative "Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel" to reinforce the weight of this new covenant which the scribe had lifted from the book of the covenant (the only true covenant in his mind.) This scribe felt strongly that a new covenant was needed because the Israelites had gravely sinned against God in looking for a new God by making a graven image. This new covenant had to be based on the covenantal code and not an ethical code.

I agree that this scribe left some fuzziness when he didn't adjust 34:1 "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." Poor editing, imo.

I have no objection to your first claim... namely that Exod 19:5 anticipates 34:10 and that these are references to one and the same covenant --- indeed, Moses' petition in 34:9 not only repeats back a portion of the deity's words in 34:7 as outlined above, but echoes this remote (at least in the extant form of the book) promise at 19:5 that the people would become the deity's possession out of all the nations if they obey. I don't see that a case has been made, however, linking that covenantal promise specifically to the 'traditional' decalogue of the following chapter, which can only be connected to a covenant by inferring its inclusion in the words spoken and recorded at 24:4, which is a different covenant than the one detailed in chapter 34... at best it is a renewal of the other covenant that was broken, but this isn't clear.

The words of the decalogue in Ex 20 were written in stone in Ex 31:18

I read the can of worms you opened up after responding to the above. I might not have tried a reconstruction if I knew you were going to throw chapter 34 out the window! Even though I failed miserably, it was interesting to do it and more interesting to read your critiques.
I'm not going to delete this. It should give you a good chuckle.

 

[Caroljeen]

Your inclusion of Exod 34:29-35 to cover the entire chapter opens up the question of its relationship to the whole... indeed, this opens up a whole other can of worms that is going to complicate things even further. There is an important footnote in the NRSV at verse 29... Moses is described as coming down from Mount Sinai "with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand" --- the word 'covenant' is footnoted to the following comment: "Or treaty, or testimony; Heb eduth." This is a different word than that found in the previous verse and throughout the first part of the chapter... there the word is berith (or brit, as our interlocutor over on the Judaism board introduced it using a modern pronunciation). The verse echoes a previous one and I'll juxtapose them here using the translation "testimony" for eduth along with a third verse (translations are my own rather than from the NRSV):

And he {the deity} gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone written by the finger of God. (Exod 31:18)

And he turned and Moses went down from the mountain and the two tablets of the testimony were in his hand (tablets inscribed on both sides, on this side and that side they were inscribed) --- now the tablets were the work of God and the writing was the writing of God, that which was engraved on the tablets). (Exod 32:15-16)

And it came to pass that when Moses went down from Mount Sinai and the two tablets of the testimony were in Moses' hand, when he went down from the mountain Moses did not know that the skin of his face radiated when he spoke with him {the deity}. (Exod 34:29)

I'm going to introduce a scholarly German term, define it and illustrate it using the above... it is Wiederaufnahme, which means "resumption" and appears in English biblical scholarship as "resumptive repetition" --- it is "a literary device whereby an editor, after an interpolation, returns to the point of interruption and before continuing repeats part of what immediately preceded the interpolation" (Jeffrey H. Tigay, "The Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narratives in the Light of the Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic" in Empirical Models of Biblical Criticism, edited by Tigay [Wipf & Stock, 2005], p. 48).

There are two interlocking examples of "resumptive repetition" in the above verses: (1) tablets of stone written by the deity (31:18 // 32:16) and (2) Moses descent from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand (32:15 // 34:29), which signal that the intervening texts (32:1-14; 32:17-34:28) constitute a large interpolation, a supplement in other words. Note how the blue text flows together without the editorial resumptions (bold purple):

And he {the deity} gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone written by the finger of God. And he turned and Moses went down from the mountain and the two tablets of the testimony were in his hand (tablets inscribed on both sides, on this side and that side they were inscribed); when he went down from the mountain Moses did not know that the skin of his face radiated when he spoke with him {the deity}.

The eduth was introduced in the Sinai narrative as something that Moses must insert into the ark (25:16, 21), a gold-plated chest covered with a pure gold lid hammered into the shape of two cherubs, which is thereafter referred to as "the ark of the testimony" (25:22; 26:33-34; 30:6, 26; 31:7; 39:35; 40:3, 5, 21). Following the instructions for the construction of the ark, the tent structure to house it and its operation (25:1-31:11), the deity commands that the Israelites must observe his sabbaths, spelling out penalties and culminating with the following:

Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant (berith). It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (Exod 31:16-17)

Note that the Sabbath is herein introduced alone as a covenant and the command to observe it constitutes the third word of the "ritual" decalogue that it shares with the "traditional" decalogue (within the "ritual" decalogue it appears about half way through as its centerpiece) --- the inference from the connection of this text to that above (it forms an unbroken chain with the initial verse: Exod 31:16-18) is that what appears on the eduth is the Sabbath covenant (the text of which would certainly fit on two stone tablets just as easily as one of the two decalogues), which was the earliest tradition of the Sinai covenant, later supplemented by the "ritual" decalogue, the bulk of which expands on the plural sabbaths (ie. the annual festivals and sacrifical meals) and their proper maintenance.

Who decided that this was the "earliest tradition" of the Sinai covenant? You seem to be speaking about these more as real historical facts than speculative theories.
Do you feel a little underhanded bringing this out later in the game?

 

[Caroljeen]

Your reconstruction does offer some continuity, but it is incomplete... to further the exploration above of the ark, eduth and sabbath covenant, there is the problem of reconciling Exodus 34 (and the story within which it is embedded) with Deuteronomy 10. Here are the opening verses of each, keeping in mind that the Deuteronomists know of the earlier text and are quoting and revising it (revisions in bold, relocations underlined, omissions from the Exodus source flagged with blue text):

Exodus 34:
1 The Lord said to Moses, “Carve out 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 smashed. 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.

Deuteronomy 10:
1 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 And 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."

The significant difference between the two versions is that the Deuteronomists insert a command for Moses to build a wooden ark into which he is to place the rewritten tablets. The claim is prefaced with the temporal marker "at that time", which is the culmination of forty days and nights of Moses petitioning the deity on behalf of the Israelites who have sinned with the fashioning of a golden calf (9:7-29)... this conflicts with the chronology of the Exodus narrative where Moses received instructions concerning the ark prior to coming down the mountain and smashing the first set of tablets. And while the ark is made by the metallurgist Bezalel in Exodus after Moses returns from the mountain with the replacement tablets, the Deuteronomists present Moses himself making the ark before he goes up the mountain (10:3)... these constitute irreconcilable chronological conflicts between the two books --- the presentation of the ark as a simple wooden chest in Deuteronomy (rather than a gold-plated wooden chest adorned with golden cherubs as in Exodus) reflects the iconoclasm of the Deuteronomists and their ongoing ideological battles with the theology presented in Exodus.

There aren't two arks? ...a wooden ark until the gold one was made?

Iconoclasm. Transcendent God. Ideological battles. In what time period do you suppose the Deuteronomists to have lived?

You're welcome... I hope it was a productive exercise and that my comments above reflect the appreciation I feel for the work and insights you brought to the discussion. My critical feedback is intended constructively and, as I noted early on in our dialogue, to stimulate thought about these texts. If you want to leave things as they are, that's cool, but if you have any further comments you wish to make in response to the above, I should be able to reply before I start my sabbatical from CARM a week from today...

I found our discussion stimulating and thought provoking. It certainly was much more than I expected. A push to think more deeply and analytically is always appreciated. I hope you have a productive sabbatical from CARM. Thanks again.

 

[Caroljeen]

This is a good example of the second shortcoming I noted above... you have articulated that you think Exod 34:27-28a was a supplement to the chapter and thus removed it in your reconstruction, but you haven't provided a reason why a scribe would have added these comments in the first place. Indeed, why would a scribe introduce such a flagrant conflict as this, transferring authorship of the words on the stone tablets from the deity over to Moses? Stripping the deity of such agency is highly unlikely as motivation for deliberate scribal intervention into the story...


I have no objection to your first claim... namely that Exod 19:5 anticipates 34:10 and that these are references to one and the same covenant --- indeed, Moses' petition in 34:9 not only repeats back a portion of the deity's words in 34:7 as outlined above, but echoes this remote (at least in the extant form of the book) promise at 19:5 that the people would become the deity's possession out of all the nations if they obey. I don't see that a case has been made, however, linking that covenantal promise specifically to the 'traditional' decalogue of the following chapter, which can only be connected to a covenant by inferring its inclusion in the words spoken and recorded at 24:4, which is a different covenant than the one detailed in chapter 34... at best it is a renewal of the other covenant that was broken, but this isn't clear.


Your inclusion of Exod 34:29-35 to cover the entire chapter opens up the question of its relationship to the whole... indeed, this opens up a whole other can of worms that is going to complicate things even further. There is an important footnote in the NRSV at verse 29... Moses is described as coming down from Mount Sinai "with the two tablets of the covenant in his hand" --- the word 'covenant' is footnoted to the following comment: "Or treaty, or testimony; Heb eduth." This is a different word than that found in the previous verse and throughout the first part of the chapter... there the word is berith (or brit, as our interlocutor over on the Judaism board introduced it using a modern pronunciation). The verse echoes a previous one and I'll juxtapose them here using the translation "testimony" for eduth along with a third verse (translations are my own rather than from the NRSV):

And he {the deity} gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone written by the finger of God. (Exod 31:18)

And he turned and Moses went down from the mountain and the two tablets of the testimony were in his hand (tablets inscribed on both sides, on this side and that side they were inscribed) --- now the tablets were the work of God and the writing was the writing of God, that which was engraved on the tablets). (Exod 32:15-16)

And it came to pass that when Moses went down from Mount Sinai and the two tablets of the testimony were in Moses' hand, when he went down from the mountain Moses did not know that the skin of his face radiated when he spoke with him {the deity}. (Exod 34:29)

I'm going to introduce a scholarly German term, define it and illustrate it using the above... it is Wiederaufnahme, which means "resumption" and appears in English biblical scholarship as "resumptive repetition" --- it is "a literary device whereby an editor, after an interpolation, returns to the point of interruption and before continuing repeats part of what immediately preceded the interpolation" (Jeffrey H. Tigay, "The Evolution of the Pentateuchal Narratives in the Light of the Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic" in Empirical Models of Biblical Criticism, edited by Tigay [Wipf & Stock, 2005], p. 48).

There are two interlocking examples of "resumptive repetition" in the above verses: (1) tablets of stone written by the deity (31:18 // 32:16) and (2) Moses descent from the mountain with the two tablets of the testimony in his hand (32:15 // 34:29), which signal that the intervening texts (32:1-14; 32:17-34:28) constitute a large interpolation, a supplement in other words. Note how the blue text flows together without the editorial resumptions (bold purple):

And he {the deity} gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone written by the finger of God. And he turned and Moses went down from the mountain and the two tablets of the testimony were in his hand (tablets inscribed on both sides, on this side and that side they were inscribed); when he went down from the mountain Moses did not know that the skin of his face radiated when he spoke with him {the deity}.

The eduth was introduced in the Sinai narrative as something that Moses must insert into the ark (25:16, 21), a gold-plated chest covered with a pure gold lid hammered into the shape of two cherubs, which is thereafter referred to as "the ark of the testimony" (25:22; 26:33-34; 30:6, 26; 31:7; 39:35; 40:3, 5, 21). Following the instructions for the construction of the ark, the tent structure to house it and its operation (25:1-31:11), the deity commands that the Israelites must observe his sabbaths, spelling out penalties and culminating with the following:

Therefore the Israelites shall keep the sabbath, observing the sabbath throughout their generations, as a perpetual covenant (berith). It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed. (Exod 31:16-17)

Note that the Sabbath is herein introduced alone as a covenant and the command to observe it constitutes the third word of the "ritual" decalogue that it shares with the "traditional" decalogue (within the "ritual" decalogue it appears about half way through as its centerpiece) --- the inference from the connection of this text to that above (it forms an unbroken chain with the initial verse: Exod 31:16-18) is that what appears on the eduth is the Sabbath covenant (the text of which would certainly fit on two stone tablets just as easily as one of the two decalogues), which was the earliest tradition of the Sinai covenant, later supplemented by the "ritual" decalogue, the bulk of which expands on the plural sabbaths (ie. the annual festivals and sacrifical meals) and their proper maintenance.

Now that I've had time to reflect on Tigay's bold literary method (not that I agree with it) of wiping out a couple of chapters in one fell swoop, I have a couple of questions and a few comments. I understand that you are implying that the Ex 20 decalogue had not been supplemented and using Tigay's method you belief that Ex 31:16-17 were the words of the covenant that was on the tablets, correct?

If yes, that seems to make it easier for me to defend the Ex 20 decalogue since my proposal is that it was there in the first place and the events you are proposing happened after Ex 20. I've never found God speaking from the mountain for all of Israel to hear as out of place. I also didn't have a problem with the voice not being mentioned in vs 18 since they had already heard the voice speak to them and their response was to tremble and be in awe. Moses explained to them why the Lord came to them in this way makes sense to me.

What hebrew word is used for 'covenant' in Ex 19:5? Is it berith? If so, then what is the problem with perceiving the Ex 20 decalogue as an introductory portion of the covenant? Even the specific portions that God wanted all of the people to know by speaking it audibly to them from the mountain? Why isn't the Ex 20 decalogue on the 2 tablets? It already includes the Sabbath day command and expands it to include slaves and animals. It would also fit in with Deuteronomy.

Ex 19:5 Now therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the people
Ex 19:9 Then the Lord said to Moses, “I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, in order that the people may hear when I speak with you and so trust you ever after.”
Ex 20:18-22 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.” Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid; for God has come only to test you and to put the fear of him upon you so that you do not sin.” Then the people stood at a distance, while Moses drew near to the thick darkness where God was. The Lord said to Moses: Thus you shall say to the Israelites: “You have seen for yourselves that I spoke with you from heaven. 23 You shall not make gods of silver alongside me, nor shall you make for yourselves gods of gold.

 

[Caroljeen]

... those who, like myself, approach the composition of the Pentateuch using more complex models... for example Konrad Schmid (Video #27) and Thomas Römer (Video #31). These are just some highlights as there are many other engaging papers and big names in scholarship on Exodus and related disciplines (Egyptology, cultural memory, archaeology).
UCSD Exodus Conference (2013)

I listened to the last 2 videos you suggested. Thanks to you, I can understand some of the terminology but they speak so fast in order to get everything they want to say in the allotted timeframe, I can't keep up with them. I listen to it anyways all the way through hoping I will get the gist of it despite missing some details.

 

[Caroljeen]

If forgot to ask the obvious. You may touch on this in your response but in case you don't, how do you explain the addition of chapters 32-33 and the ritual dialogue if one were to agree with Tigay's version?

 

[En Hakkore]

1. I honestly didn't even consider it but if I was to speculate, the editor (a polite term for someone who is tampering with a sacred text, imo) would have added those when he took the original decalogue out of Ex 34 to make it look and sound somewhat familiar to the text he removed.

Thanks for clarifying that, upon further reflection prompted by my feedback, you think the same editor responsible for swapping the decalogues also added the other verses. The reason provided -- which I don't find persuasive in general -- could be applied to the first two (34:7 and 34:14), but not to the third (34:27b-28). If I were going to remove a section of text and substitute something different in its place, planting a couple reminders of its content is probably the last thing I would do...

2. You are asking me why someone would want to exchange the original decalogue that was rewritten by God on the second set of tablets in Ex 34 after Moses smashed the first set? The original decalogue being the first set of 10 commandments given in Ex 20, correct? I would have to speculate that whoever did it was a scribe who lived in a time before Deuteronomy was written. It was likely just a scribal error. He lost his place while copying Ex 34 and inadvertently replaced the original Decalogue with later portions of the covenantal code. (I would hate to think he did it maliciously.)

It is unclear why you feel the substitution had to have taken place before Deuteronomy was written... it could conceivably have taken place afterward --- the argument could even then be made that the Deuteronomists' version reflected the text as originally written instead of having to argue (as I do) that they deliberately were suppressing portions of it. In any case, the scribal error theory is not convincing and contradicts both the deliberate additions in the other cases you outline above and the theory you outline below. When scribes lose their place inadvertently they omit words or clauses, they do not exchange large swaths of text. If they realize they have lost their place, they presumably find it and continue on... to suggest a scribe got lost at the transition between Exod 34:16-17, rolled back in his source the equivalent of eleven chapters, inserted a revised form of several sections from the covenant code, realized his error and rolled forward in his source and picked up at Exod 34:27 (or 29?) is mechanically unsound and can therefore be discarded as a viable theory.

This scribe (later editor) must have had a fever and was a little delirious to intervene in such a way. But let's say that the later editor was in his right mind. Perhaps his preference was to have the words from the covenantal code as the ten words. He held the code in much higher esteem than he did the words spoken by God to all of the people from mount Sinai because the book of the covenant was attested to with the sealing of the sacrificial blood.

As noted above, this contradicts your accident theory... that said, this explanation for a deliberate exchange -- while not persuasive either -- is at least within the realm of possibility. It stumbles on the matter of assuming the 'traditional' decalogue was merely spoken and thus not a part of the written covenant code, but you have argued previously these words would have been included (and I agree with you they would have been if they were in the earliest version of the story). Appearance in the covenant code is thus not a viable reason for the scribe's decision... you would have propose another one.

I didn't want to alter the Ex 20 decalogue when I reinserted it and took the extension (Ex 34) decalogue out.

I was going to comment on the anomaly of a flawless version of Exod 20:1-17 existing in Exodus 34, but in the end decided not to. I'll introduce the matter now since you made a specific comment about not altering it... the Deuteronomists' version, which is clearly the same basic text, differs in some of the details and likewise the extant text of Exod 34:17-26 with parallels in the covenant code --- the same would be true of your hypothetical version of the 'traditional' decalogue vis-à-vis either the from found in Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5.

Sometimes editors make mistakes.

Touché!

You are a master at weaving a story together.

I'll take that as a compliment... but the point is that my analysis was simply one of recognizing the unity and literary artistry of the text, which is a strong argument against the secondary editing you propose.

I look at the verses 11-16 as more of a continued instruction for Israel regarding their disobedience in chapter 32. There may not be as smooth and seamless flow as I would have preferred when I put the Ex 20 decalogue back into its rightful place but I still think it works.

It remains jarring and evidence that -- of the two scenarios -- it is the Exodus 20 version that is out of place in Exodus 34 and the result of a later editor by the name of Caroljeen...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

Thanks for clarifying that, upon further reflection prompted by my feedback, you think the same editor responsible for swapping the decalogues also added the other verses. The reason provided -- which I don't find persuasive in general -- could be applied to the first two (34:7 and 34:14), but not to the third (34:27b-28). If I were going to remove a section of text and substitute something different in its place, planting a couple reminders of its content is probably the last thing I would do...

Good point. I would make a lousy editor, imo.

It is unclear why you feel the substitution had to have taken place before Deuteronomy was written... it could conceivably have taken place afterward --- the argument could even then be made that the Deuteronomists' version reflected the text as originally written instead of having to argue (as I do) that they deliberately were suppressing portions of it. In any case, the scribal error theory is not convincing and contradicts both the deliberate additions in the other cases you outline above and the theory you outline below. When scribes lose their place inadvertently they omit words or clauses, they do not exchange large swaths of text. If they realize they have lost their place, they presumably find it and continue on... to suggest a scribe got lost at the transition between Exod 34:16-17, rolled back in his source the equivalent of eleven chapters, inserted a revised form of several sections from the covenant code, realized his error and rolled forward in his source and picked up at Exod 34:27 (or 29?) is mechanically unsound and can therefore be discarded as a viable theory.

Ok, I'm a lousy text critic also.

As noted above, this contradicts your accident theory... that said, this explanation for a deliberate exchange -- while not persuasive either -- is at least within the realm of possibility. It stumbles on the matter of assuming the 'traditional' decalogue was merely spoken and thus not a part of the written covenant code, but you have argued previously these words would have been included (and I agree with you they would have been if they were in the earliest version of the story). Appearance in the covenant code is thus not a viable reason for the scribe's decision... you would have propose another one.

I'm not interested in doing that at the moment.

I was going to comment on the anomaly of a flawless version of Exod 20:1-17 existing in Exodus 34, but in the end decided not to.

I was going with the understanding that it was in the original text of Exodus 20 so I didn't see a reason to change it in Exodus 34 since it was the same book.

I'll introduce the matter now since you made a specific comment about not altering it... the Deuteronomists' version, which is clearly the same basic text, differs in some of the details and likewise the extant text of Exod 34:17-26 with parallels in the covenant code --- the same would be true of your hypothetical version of the 'traditional' decalogue vis-à-vis either the from found in Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5.

I don't understand your point.

I'll take that as a compliment... but the point is that my analysis was simply one of recognizing the unity and literary artistry of the text, which is a strong argument against the secondary editing you propose.

Yes, it was definitely a compliment. Simple for you. Not simple for me.

It remains jarring and evidence that -- of the two scenarios -- it is the Exodus 20 version that is out of place in Exodus 34 and the result of a later editor by the name of Caroljeen...

As it is, I agree. I would have liked to added other words to make it flow better but I'm not a creative writer. In college my creative writing professor gave me a B and I know I deserved a much lower grade.

I feel the same way about the ritual decalogue. Jarring.

 

[En Hakkore]

I didn't even think of giving reasons why. I'm glad you pointed that out. But of course, I have to speculate why the scribe would not only supplement those words but the entire ritual decalogue just as you speculated why someone would insert the ethical decalogue in Ex 20.

The scribe removed the ethical decalogue from Ex 34 because he found the covenantal code more aesthetically pleasing in its legalistic structure and more significant and binding because it was a blood covenant unlike the covenant introduced on Sinai. He was behaving just as rogue as who ever might have supplemented the ethical supplement in Ex 20 (as you suppose).

Just as Moses wrote the covenantal code, Moses should also be the one to write this new covenant (the ritual decalogue). He had to add the strong imperative "Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel" to reinforce the weight of this new covenant which the scribe had lifted from the book of the covenant (the only true covenant in his mind.) This scribe felt strongly that a new covenant was needed because the Israelites had gravely sinned against God in looking for a new God by making a graven image. This new covenant had to be based on the covenantal code and not an ethical code.

I agree that this scribe left some fuzziness when he didn't adjust 34:1 "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." Poor editing, imo.

The above, which differs in the main from your two earlier theories that I just finished critiquing in my last post, is an improvement on both... it still suffers, however, from a number of difficulties. The evaluation of "aesthetically pleasing" is far too subjective and unnecessary to make your case. The point about the blood covenant and separating out the words of the 'decalogue' from it, repeated from one of your earlier theories, is problematic for the reasons I outlined previously and do not need to be repeated. An editor who adds something to a text is less rogue that one who both excises and adds text... that should be straightforward enough based on the mechanics involved.

The text flagged in blue within the quote box comprise your strongest points... they collectively provide a possible (though not probable) reason not only for why a scribe might have substituted sections of the covenant code for the 'traditional' decalogue, but also added the verses about Moses writing these words of the covenant down --- that the editor forgot to adjust 34:1 to conform with his changes is an acceptable explanation for the tension. The primary difficulty in this latest theory of yours lies in distinguishing the aforementioned motivation for change from simply being the original intent of the author/redactor of chapters 32-34 as a whole. A great deal more work is required in terms of applying a method to both make this distinction and in favor of your particular theory. Another difficulty lies in why the prohibition on making idols (Exod 20:4) would have been seen an insufficient basis for either a renewed or new covenant in light of the golden calf incident... by focusing on the designation 'ethical code' (which applies only to half the 'traditional' decalogue), you seem to overlook its initial commands that are entirely consistent with the editor's proposed focus.

The words of the decalogue in Ex 20 were written in stone in Ex 31:18

I read the can of worms you opened up after responding to the above. I might not have tried a reconstruction if I knew you were going to throw chapter 34 out the window! Even though I failed miserably, it was interesting to do it and more interesting to read your critiques.
I'm not going to delete this. It should give you a good chuckle.

Thanks for the chuckle... proposing that the bulk of Exodus 34 is itself part of large-scale supplement spanning three chapters, however, is not "to throw [it] out the window" --- these radical reactions do not reflect anything I've said about the texts under discussion, which is to respect them as pieces of an evolving tradition about the Sinai covenant.

Who decided that this was the "earliest tradition" of the Sinai covenant? You seem to be speaking about these more as real historical facts than speculative theories.

Feel free to insert "I think" before claims I am making about these texts... it is implied and I do not include it because it would become extremely redundant.

Do you feel a little underhanded bringing this out later in the game?

No, I don't.

There aren't two arks? ...a wooden ark until the gold one was made?

My response is the same as to my interlocutor over on the Judaism forum who proposed two books of the covenant... see here, very bottom video link. No, there were not two arks... Exodus knows of only one ark (the gold-plated one) and Deuteronomy knows of only one ark (the unadorned one), neither tradition acknowledges the existence of a second ark --- the only reason to suggest there might have been two is to resolve the fact these two traditions contradict each other about when it was made, how it was made and by who.

Iconoclasm. Transcendent God. Ideological battles. In what time period do you suppose the Deuteronomists to have lived?

To expand on the answer given here to the slightly different question you asked about dating... I date the preamble material of Deuteronomy (chs 1-11) to the reign of Josiah (ie. late 7th century BCE) and similarly the epilogue material (chs 27-34) --- there is some earlier material worked into the latter (ie. the poem in ch 33) and some exilic or post-exilic expansions in both (ie. references assuming the exile in chs 4, 28 and 30). This leaves the law code itself (chs 12-26), which is earlier and bears traces of having come from the northern kingdom --- its core thus had to have been written sometime before about 722 BCE when Israel fell to the Assyrians. In other words, the material in Deuteronomy stretches over a period at least 150 years and thus represents a school of thought rather than a group writing only within a very narrow window of time. That said, I think the idea of a transcendent deity and ideological battles with material collected in Exodus best reflect the burst of activity on the literary corpus during the Josianic period and I thus have no objections to referring to these authors as the Deuteronomists proper (as I often do, including in the post linked above) in the sense of fashioning the book in the form we more or less now know it as.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[En Hakkore]

Now that I've had time to reflect on Tigay's bold literary method (not that I agree with it) of wiping out a couple of chapters in one fell swoop,

Just to clarify two things up front... first, I cited Tigay's definition of "resumptive repetition", but he is not the originator of identifying it as an editorial technique (I would have to do a bit of research to find out who did). Second, the application of "resumptive repetition" to the texts in question is not Tigay's either, it is mine --- he would agree with the literary seams I identified but, as a proponent of the Documentary Hypothesis, reverse the polarity of my argument by claiming the Sabbath covenant (typically identified as P) was a later source grafted onto the Exodus 32-34 story (typically identified as a combination of J and E).

I have a couple of questions and a few comments. I understand that you are implying that the Ex 20 decalogue had not been supplemented and using Tigay's method you belief that Ex 31:16-17 were the words of the covenant that was on the tablets, correct?

Mostly correct, though I'll elaborate to make sure there are no misunderstandings... the contents of the "tablets of the testimony" were envisioned in the earliest tradition of the Sinai covenant to be something similar to what we find in Exod 31:13b-17 rather than just 31:16-17 (this is not so clear in a synchronic reading of Exodus as I'll demonstrate in a moment). At this time, not only had the 'traditional' decalogue of 20:1-17 not been added as a supplement, but the entirety of the complex into which it was inserted (19:3b-24:14) was yet to be added. Allow me to illustrate what I mean:

[19:1] On the third new moon after the Israelites had gone forth from the land of Egypt, on that very day, they came into the wilderness of Sinai. [19:2] And they journeyed from Rephidim and they came into the wilderness of Sinai and they camped in the desert. And Israel camped there in front of the mountain. [19:3a-b] And Moses went up {on}to {the mountain of} God and YHWH called to him from the mountain...

[24:15] And Moses went up onto the mountain and the cloud covered the mountain. [24:16] And the glory of YHWH settled on Mount Sinai and the cloud covered it six days and he called to Moses on the seventh day from the midst of the cloud. [24:17] And the appearance of the glory of YHWH was like a consuming fire on top of the mountain in the eyes of the Israelites. [24:18] And Moses went into the midst of the cloud and he went up onto the mountain and Moses was on the mountain forty days and forty nights.

If you think this sounds a bit repetitious, you'd be right... there are a number of supplements marked in bold purple that serve different purposes --- the first (19:2a) assists with the incorporation of the supplemental material about the Israelites' stay at Rephidim (chs 17-18) into the base narrative; the second (24:16-17) is a wordy clarification about the relationship of the cloud to the deity and specifies a delay in summons, the wording of which echoes 19:3b, the opening line of the large supplement; the third (24:18b) specifies the amount of time Moses spent on the mountain, the wording of which echoes 34:28, the closing line of the smaller supplement to which the larger is connected (see below, last paragraph). 24:15a is a "resumptive repetition" of 19:3a... the bracketed material {~} comes from LXX, which I don't think is the earliest recoverable form of the text, but it correctly interprets that when Moses is said to have gone up to God, it implies his ascent onto Mount Sinai, which the editor correctly assumes in the repetition that brings the narrative back together --- here is how it reads smoothly without the intervening material and with the continuation in the following chapter:

[19:1] On the third new moon after the Israelites had gone forth from the land of Egypt, on that very day, they came into the wilderness of Sinai. [19:2b] And Israel camped there in front of the mountain. [19:3a] And Moses went up to God [24:15b] and the cloud covered the mountain. [24:18] And Moses went into the midst of the cloud [25:1] and YHWH spoke to Moses, saying...

This long speech of the deity runs all the way through to 31:17, concluding there with reference to the Sabbath covenant. Without the intervening story of a covenant ceremony, precipitated by a number of regulations issued by the deity, what words were written on the "tablets of the testimony" in 31:18 is not difficult to deduce... it is only when the material from 19:3b-24:15 was added that their contents were rendered ambiguous.

If yes, that seems to make it easier for me to defend the Ex 20 decalogue since my proposal is that it was there in the first place and the events you are proposing happened after Ex 20.

I'm not following why your position is made easier to defend with the proposal that it was a supplement to a supplement.

I've never found God speaking from the mountain for all of Israel to hear as out of place. I also didn't have a problem with the voice not being mentioned in vs 18 since they had already heard the voice speak to them and their response was to tremble and be in awe. Moses explained to them why the Lord came to them in this way makes sense to me.

The fact that the Deuteronomists are forced to significantly revise the Exodus text at this point to make sense of things is strong evidence in favor of the supplemental status of 20:1-17.

What hebrew word is used for 'covenant' in Ex 19:5? Is it berith? If so, then what is the problem with perceiving the Ex 20 decalogue as an introductory portion of the covenant?

Yes, the word is berith in Exod 19:5 --- I'm not seeing what bearing that has on all the other problems I've identified with viewing the 'traditional' decalogue as 'original' to the story.

If forgot to ask the obvious. You may touch on this in your response but in case you don't, how do you explain the addition of chapters 32-33 and the ritual dialogue if one were to agree with Tigay's version?

With the clarification above about what Tigay did and did not contribute to the present discussion in mind, the larger supplemental section (19:3b-24:15) and smaller supplemental section (32:1-14; 32:17-34:28) work in tandem to incorporate two alternative and more elaborate traditions about the Sinai covenant into the overarching narrative... the first is subordinated to the second by having it broken and in need of renewal.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

The above, which differs in the main from your two earlier theories that I just finished critiquing in my last post, is an improvement on both... it still suffers, however, from a number of difficulties. The evaluation of "aesthetically pleasing" is far too subjective and unnecessary to make your case. The point about the blood covenant and separating out the words of the 'decalogue' from it, repeated from one of your earlier theories, is problematic for the reasons I outlined previously and do not need to be repeated. An editor who adds something to a text is less rogue that one who both excises and adds text... that should be straightforward enough based on the mechanics involved.

The text flagged in blue within the quote box comprise your strongest points... they collectively provide a possible (though not probable) reason not only for why a scribe might have substituted sections of the covenant code for the 'traditional' decalogue, but also added the verses about Moses writing these words of the covenant down --- that the editor forgot to adjust 34:1 to conform with his changes is an acceptable explanation for the tension. The primary difficulty in this latest theory of yours lies in distinguishing the aforementioned motivation for change from simply being the original intent of the author/redactor of chapters 32-34 as a whole. A great deal more work is required in terms of applying a method to both make this distinction and in favor of your particular theory. Another difficulty lies in why the prohibition on making idols (Exod 20:4) would have been seen an insufficient basis for either a renewed or new covenant in light of the golden calf incident... by focusing on the designation 'ethical code' (which applies only to half the 'traditional' decalogue), you seem to overlook its initial commands that are entirely consistent with the editor's proposed focus.


Thanks for the chuckle... proposing that the bulk of Exodus 34 is itself part of large-scale supplement spanning three chapters, however, is not "to throw [it] out the window" --- these radical reactions do not reflect anything I've said about the texts under discussion, which is to respect them as pieces of an evolving tradition about the Sinai covenant.


Feel free to insert "I think" before claims I am making about these texts... it is implied and I do not include it because it would become extremely redundant.


No, I don't.


My response is the same as to my interlocutor over on the Judaism forum who proposed two books of the covenant... see here, very bottom video link. No, there were not two arks... Exodus knows of only one ark (the gold-plated one) and Deuteronomy knows of only one ark (the unadorned one), neither tradition acknowledges the existence of a second ark --- the only reason to suggest there might have been two is to resolve the fact these two traditions contradict each other about when it was made, how it was made and by who.


To expand on the answer given here to the slightly different question you asked about dating... I date the preamble material of Deuteronomy (chs 1-11) to the reign of Josiah (ie. late 7th century BCE) and similarly the epilogue material (chs 27-34) --- there is some earlier material worked into the latter (ie. the poem in ch 33) and some exilic or post-exilic expansions in both (ie. references assuming the exile in chs 4, 28 and 30). This leaves the law code itself (chs 12-26), which is earlier and bears traces of having come from the northern kingdom --- its core thus had to have been written sometime before about 722 BCE when Israel fell to the Assyrians. In other words, the material in Deuteronomy stretches over a period at least 150 years and thus represents a school of thought rather than a group writing only within a very narrow window of time. That said, I think the idea of a transcendent deity and ideological battles with material collected in Exodus best reflect the burst of activity on the literary corpus during the Josianic period and I thus have no objections to referring to these authors as the Deuteronomists proper (as I often do, including in the post linked above) in the sense of fashioning the book in the form we more or less now know it as.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Thank you for the explanations, critiques, and interaction on the subject of the thread. I appreciate the time and effort you took in doing so. I'm going to forgo further questions and comments since you will be gone from CARM on a sabbatical until June. You've been an excellent teacher on the historical biblical method.

 

[Yakuda]

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

Yes but it all breaks down to one commandment, thou shalt not steal. Period that's it. Don't steal from God the worship that is his, don't steal someone's life, wife, goods, don't steal justice from people by lying dont steal the honor due your parents. When I think of it like that I'd doesn't matter how many versions there are this reminds me the world isn't all about me.

 

[Caroljeen]

Yes but it all breaks down to one commandment, thou shalt not steal. Period that's it. Don't steal from God the worship that is his, don't steal someone's life, wife, goods, don't steal justice from people by lying dont steal the honor due your parents. When I think of it like that I'd doesn't matter how many versions there are this reminds me the world isn't all about me.

I think love God, love your neighbor sums it up. The golden rule is good as well.

 

[Yakuda]

I think love God, love your neighbor sums it up. The golden rule is good as well.

Right dont steal from God the love he is owed. It has to do with not taking whats not yours. Its very very simple. If you dont steal the respect people are owed then the golden rule is met. The world is about me as soon as i learn that the rest is easy

 

[Caroljeen]

Right dont steal from God the love he is owed. It has to do with not taking whats not yours. Its very very simple. If you dont steal the respect people are owed then the golden rule is met. The world is about me as soon as i learn that the rest is easy

If that works for you, that's great!

This is what works for me:
Romans 13:9-10 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law

 

[Yakuda]

If that works for you, that's great!

This is what works for me:
Romans 13:9-10 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not covet”; and any other commandment, are summed up in this word, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law

Right as i already explained those are all stealing

 

[En Hakkore]

Thank you for the explanations, critiques, and interaction on the subject of the thread. I appreciate the time and effort you took in doing so. I'm going to forgo further questions and comments since you will be gone from CARM on a sabbatical until June. You've been an excellent teacher on the historical biblical method.

That's cool... hopefully I've given you a few things to think about while I'm gone! Thank you for starting the thread (over 1000 views and climbing, woohoo!) and for being a great student and for your willingness to explore new terrain in the analysis and interpretation of biblical texts --- some of it was undoubtedly challenging and you rose to the occasion admirably! I look forward to continuing dialogue with you on this and/or other topics of mutual interest when I return in June...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[UncleAbee]

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

There are two versions of the commandments in the OT. There are 2 versions of a whole lot of things in the OT.

 

[UncleAbee]

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.

Because these stories are pieced together from different oral traditions.