Jewish Perspective on the Ten Commandments

[Jewjitzu]

There's no reason to make this assumption unless one is committed to trying to harmonize disparate traditions within the Torah.

Not really, v1 says God was intent on writing them. V28 confirms it.

To the best of my knowledge no one is suggesting Moses had anything to do with the writing on the first set of tablets, which is what Exod 31:18 is referring to.

Ok, that's great. Moses didn't write the second tablets either. It's not supported anywhere.

I stated it was "within the realm of possibility" but because it is an unnatural way of reading the text that it was "highly improbable" --- indeed, let's compare the two options:

ויכתב על־הלחת את דברי הברית עשרת הדברים
And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten words
And he wrote on the tablets with the words of the covenant, the ten words

As noted previously, I'm not aware of any translation that renders it the way you propose, nor even footnotes it as a viable alternative. A direct object for the verb drops out of the clause, which is awkward but not unheard of... but this is compounded by ambiguity in the resultant prepositional phrase --- does it mean he wrote on the tablets that contained the covenant words or that he wrote on the tablets alongside the covenant words? There are more natural ways of conveying either one of these ideas that what you propose with a prepositional force to את. Your suggestion further deviates from the standard practice of marking direct objects of this verb elsewhere... analogical models for the standard translation are found within the context of Exodus:

Maybe not standard, but not out of the question.

Exod 24:4 // ויכתב משה את כל־דברי יהוה
Exod 34:1 // וכתבתי על־הלחת את־הדברים אשר היו על־הלחת הראשנים אשר שברת
Exod 34:27 // כתב־לך את־הדברים האלה

The two from chapter 34 are important since they establish syntactical alignments... particularly the second one since the imperative there is carried out in the verse in question. You would thus have to suggest that it, too, be retranslated "Write for yourself with these words", which makes even less sense since "these words" are a reference back not to anything written but to what the deity has just spoken in the preceding verses. Your suggestion is rendered problematic on so many levels that, as I said, it is highly improbable and rightly does not appear in any translation of which I am aware, even as a footnoted alternative.

Not really, there are always the exceptions to the rule. I'm sure you've run across that.

What Moses writes is clarified to be the "ten words" so cannot be a "book of the law", whatever it is you think that might mean in this context.

And yet nothing is said about him writing on any tablets. So, what do you do now?

You believe he mused so but cannot find the source of it? In any case, the critique above stands...

Sure. Ibn Ezra. Find his commentary on the verse. In any case, my idea stands.

It conflicts with Exod 34:27-28 that Moses wrote the "ten words" on these tablets.

Actually, nothing says Moses wrote on the tablets. The "He" is God, as elaborated in Deut 10:1-4 as you pointed out yourself.

You tell me... you're the one who offered these passages in the context of discussion about chapter 34 --- what relevance do these purported writings --- one written ten chapters earlier and the other forty years later in the timeline of the Torah --- have to do with the subject at hand?

So, you think Genesis was written first too? Either way, the verses you gave in Deuteronomy should clarify Exodus for you.

The ones you propose were written alongside the other set of "ten words" that the Israelite deity wrote, making a total of twenty commandments on the tablets... attempts at harmonization lead inevitably to traditions held by none of the biblical authors.

That was one opinion that Moses wrote the book of the law with God writing the tablets. My preference is that Moses wrote on the book of the law.

Not really because it's a tortured reading of the text, as outlined above...

Not really but you're entitled to your thinking.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Likewise.

 

[En Hakkore]

Not really, v1 says God was intent on writing them. V28 confirms it.

You're back-peddling... you already conceded in your first response to me that you had to assume the deity wrote on the tablets --- now you're claiming Exod 34:28 confirms it. No, it doesn't... you're reading that into the text. My point stands that you make this leap in logic to serve an agenda of harmonizing the disparate traditions in the Torah.

Ok, that's great. Moses didn't write the second tablets either. It's not supported anywhere.

More back-peddling... in the post to which I initially responded you claimed that one option of understanding Exod 34:28 was that Moses wrote on the second set of tablets alongside the purported writing of the deity. Are you retracting this suggestion and putting yourself 100% behind your other option that it refers to him supplementing the earlier "book of the covenant" he wrote with the words of 34:? If so, your forays into retranslating Exod 34:28 go nowhere since, however you construe the passage from את onward, you cannot get out of the fact that the writing there takes place on the tablets themselves... you have to flat out ignore the verse or propose an alternative subject for the verb (see below re: Ibn Ezra).

Maybe not standard, but not out of the question.


Not really, there are always the exceptions to the rule. I'm sure you've run across that.

These pithy one-liners are inadequate to rebut the detailed analysis I provided that undermined your attempted retranslation. Bottom line is that you have no support from any major translation available... it is a highly improbable rendering, idiosyncratic and even self-refuting if you opt out of claiming Moses wrote anything on these tablets in the first place (see above and immediately below).

And yet nothing is said about him writing on any tablets. So, what do you do now?

It really does seem you are rejecting one of your earlier options... namely that Moses supplemented the divine writing on the tablets with the words of Exod 34:11-26. If so, you need to formally retract this claim so I can focus on rebutting your alternative suggestion as it relates to what (if anything) you think Moses wrote.

Sure. Ibn Ezra. Find his commentary on the verse. In any case, my idea stands.

Your idea is not supported by Ibn Ezra's commentary on this verse that I found here. It reads:

ויכתוב על הלוחות. השם כתבם. כי כן כתוב וכתבתי על הלוחות את הדברים אשר היו על הלוחות הראשונים אשר שברת

He begins by citing the opening words of the pertinent clause (ie. "And he wrote upon the tablets") and proceeds to interpret the subject of the verb not as Moses but God... he defends the claim that "HaShem wrote {on} them" with "For it is written so" and proceeds to quote the divine intention found in Exod 34:1, namely "And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets that you shattered." Where do you get out of this that Ibn Ezra understands את as the preposition "with" rather than the direct object marker of the verb "to write"? He implicitly stands with me and all the other translators of this verse in reading it as a direct object marker, which it clearly is...

Actually, nothing says Moses wrote on the tablets. The "He" is God, as elaborated in Deut 10:1-4 as you pointed out yourself.

As if in anticipation of me looking up what Ibn Ezra had to say on the verse, here you are touting his interpretation (I've actually heard it before) that the Israelite deity is the subject of the verb כתב rather than Moses (this is further self-refuting to all your earlier claims about Moses writing something, either on the tablets or elsewhere). With all due respect to your medieval source, his musings are wrong... this is little more than an attempt to smooth out a tension in the Exodus text and harmonize an outright contradiction when it is compared to the text of Deuteronomy. The verb is linked in a consecutive chain with the first verb of the verse and between which are two other verbs... the syntax demands the same subject for all four verbs and that is clearly Moses. A change of subject would require the insertion of that subject יהוה following the verb "to write".

So, you think Genesis was written first too? Either way, the verses you gave in Deuteronomy should clarify Exodus for you.

There is no reason to bring the text of Genesis into the discussion... and no, the later interpretation of the Deuteronomists does not settle the matter. They clearly rejected the idea found in Exod 34:28 that Moses wrote the terms of the covenant on the second set of tablets. This tradition and that of the Deuteronomists that the deity wrote on the second set of tablets stand in tension with one another within the Torah. Your attempts at eliminating the conflict by first retranslating and now reinterpreting Exod 34:28 are not convincing...

That was one opinion that Moses wrote the book of the law with God writing the tablets. My preference is that Moses wrote on the book of the law.

You need to pick a position and defend it... no more flip-flopping around --- this is both difficult to engage and it does your position no favors anyway since throwing various solutions out, any of which you think might work, and hoping one of them might stick undermines the viability of any one of them.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Jewjitzu]

You're back-peddling... you already conceded in your first response to me that you had to assume the deity wrote on the tablets --- now you're claiming Exod 34:28 confirms it. No, it doesn't... you're reading that into the text. My point stands that you make this leap in logic to serve an agenda of harmonizing the disparate traditions in the Torah.

No, not really. I present several opinions that are not necessarily my own. My own position is that God wrote both sets of tablets. I hope that clears things up for you.

You fail to mention that your position that Moses wrote the 2nd tablets isn't called out in v28.

More back-peddling... in the post to which I initially responded you claimed that one option of understanding Exod 34:28 was that Moses wrote on the second set of tablets alongside the purported writing of the deity.

Which was another opinion.

Are you retracting this suggestion and putting yourself 100% behind your other option that it refers to him supplementing the earlier "book of the covenant" he wrote with the words of 34:? If so, your forays into retranslating Exod 34:28 go nowhere since, however you construe the passage from את onward, you cannot get out of the fact that the writing there takes place on the tablets themselves... you have to flat out ignore the verse or propose an alternative subject for the verb (see below re: Ibn Ezra).

So like I said, you can accept what you want.

These pithy one-liners are inadequate to rebut the detailed analysis I provided that undermined your attempted retranslation. Bottom line is that you have no support from any major translation available...

Not that this means anything. The assumption that Moses wrote the 2nd tablets isn't specifically called out in the Hebrew either. It's imagined.

it is a highly improbable rendering, idiosyncratic and even self-refuting if you opt out of claiming Moses wrote anything on these tablets in the first place (see above and immediately below).

Like I said, you can accept or not.

It really does seem you are rejecting one of your earlier options... namely that Moses supplemented the divine writing on the tablets with the words of Exod 34:11-26. If so, you need to formally retract this claim so I can focus on rebutting your alternative suggestion as it relates to what (if anything) you think Moses wrote.

Like I said, my preferred idea is that God wrote the 2nd set in v28.

Your idea is not supported by Ibn Ezra's commentary on this verse that I found here. It reads:

ויכתוב על הלוחות. השם כתבם. כי כן כתוב וכתבתי על הלוחות את הדברים אשר היו על הלוחות הראשונים אשר שברת

He begins by citing the opening words of the pertinent clause (ie. "And he wrote upon the tablets") and proceeds to interpret the subject of the verb not as Moses but God... he defends the claim that "HaShem wrote {on} them" with "For it is written so" and proceeds to quote the divine intention found in Exod 34:1, namely "And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets that you shattered." Where do you get out of this that Ibn Ezra understands את as the preposition "with" rather than the direct object marker of the verb "to write"? He implicitly stands with me and all the other translators of this verse in reading it as a direct object marker, which it clearly is...

You're absolutely right. I misread another commentary. And based on the above, I misunderstood Ibn Ezra. Thank you.

As if in anticipation of me looking up what Ibn Ezra had to say on the verse, here you are touting his interpretation (I've actually heard it before) that the Israelite deity is the subject of the verb כתב rather than Moses (this is further self-refuting to all your earlier claims about Moses writing something, either on the tablets or elsewhere). With all due respect to your medieval source, his musings are wrong... this is little more than an attempt to smooth out a tension in the Exodus text and harmonize an outright contradiction when it is compared to the text of Deuteronomy. The verb is linked in a consecutive chain with the first verb of the verse and between which are two other verbs... the syntax demands the same subject for all four verbs and that is clearly Moses. A change of subject would require the insertion of that subject יהוה following the verb "to write".

See above. It's been explained all along that God was going to write the tablets since v1.

There is no reason to bring the text of Genesis into the discussion... and no, the later interpretation of the Deuteronomists does not settle the matter. They clearly rejected the idea found in Exod 34:28 that Moses wrote the terms of the covenant on the second set of tablets.

I agree. Moses didn't write any tablets.

This tradition and that of the Deuteronomists that the deity wrote on the second set of tablets stand in tension with one another within the Torah. Your attempts at eliminating the conflict by first retranslating and now reinterpreting Exod 34:28 are not convincing...

Ok. So, now focus on God having written both sets of tablets.

You need to pick a position and defend it... no more flip-flopping around --- this is both difficult to engage and it does your position no favors anyway since throwing various solutions out, any of which you think might work, and hoping one of them might stick undermines the viability of any one of them.

I'm sorry you don't like my approach. Maybe it's my Jewish upbringing, but we tend to look at several options at once.

Now that you've clearly eliminated one, we can discuss the other.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Likewise

 

[Jewjitzu]

Your idea is not supported by Ibn Ezra's commentary on this verse that I found here. It reads:

ויכתוב על הלוחות. השם כתבם. כי כן כתוב וכתבתי על הלוחות את הדברים אשר היו על הלוחות הראשונים אשר שברת

He begins by citing the opening words of the pertinent clause (ie. "And he wrote upon the tablets") and proceeds to interpret the subject of the verb not as Moses but God... he defends the claim that "HaShem wrote {on} them" with "For it is written so" and proceeds to quote the divine intention found in Exod 34:1, namely "And I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets that you shattered." Where do you get out of this that Ibn Ezra understands את as the preposition "with" rather than the direct object marker of the verb "to write"? He implicitly stands with me and all the other translators of this verse in reading it as a direct object marker, which it clearly is...

ויאמר. ואע"פ שכבר היו כתובים כתבם פעם אחרת עם עשרת הדברים. על כן נכתבה הפרשה הזאת פעמים: AND THE LORD SAID. Even though these things were already written, Moses wrote them again with the Decalogue. This section was therefore written twice.

I've included an additional comment from Ibn Ezra to give a full perspective on his opinion. From sefaria as well.

 

[En Hakkore]

No, not really. I present several opinions that are not necessarily my own. My own position is that God wrote both sets of tablets. I hope that clears things up for you.

Like I said, my preferred idea is that God wrote the 2nd set in v28.

See above. It's been explained all along that God was going to write the tablets since v1.

I agree. Moses didn't write any tablets.

Ok. So, now focus on God having written both sets of tablets.

Now that you've clearly eliminated one, we can discuss the other.

I've grouped together your comments in order to bring focus to our unfolding discussion, though various points continue to interrelate... for example, what Moses wrote and when if not on the tablets as you affirm here continues to present as an unanswered set of questions (more on this below when I engage with Ibn Ezra's comments on Exod 34:27).

You fail to mention that your position that Moses wrote the 2nd tablets isn't called out in v28.

Not that this means anything. The assumption that Moses wrote the 2nd tablets isn't specifically called out in the Hebrew either. It's imagined.

Moses is the subject of the verb based on the syntax of Exod 34:28... I don't see that you've addressed what I already posted on this matter. Here it is again with the text supplied to illustrate what I'm talking about: The verb is linked in a consecutive chain with the first verb of the verse and between which are two other verbs... the syntax demands the same subject for all four verbs and that is clearly Moses.

ויהי־שם עם־יהוה ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה
לחם לא אכל ומים לא שתה
ויכתב על־הלחת את דברי הברית
עשרת הדברים
And he was there with YHWH forty days and forty nights
He ate not bread and he drank not water
And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant
The ten words

The subject of all four verbs is Moses... this is as explicit as it needs to be in terse Hebrew narrative with two characters alone on a mountain and one of them (ie. the deity) named as the one with whom the subject is present in the prepositional clause following the first verbal clause. It is grammatically unacceptable to posit a different subject for the fourth verb... this could only be achieved by making the switch explicit by the insertion of that subject: ויכתב יהוה על־הלחת את דברי הברית. Interpolating the subject from an assertion made twenty-seven verses earlier in the narrative is an absurd practice in any language.

You're absolutely right. I misread another commentary. And based on the above, I misunderstood Ibn Ezra. Thank you.

You're welcome and props on acknowledging the mistake. Does this also mean you retract your argument about reading את in 34:28 as a preposition rather than a direct object marker? Ibn Ezra, when he makes a similar comment (more on that below), notably uses the more typical preposition עם to express "with".

I'm sorry you don't like my approach. Maybe it's my Jewish upbringing, but we tend to look at several options at once.

That's fine provided it is clear what you're doing and you reject, as you have now, any option that does not withstand critical scrutiny. The dialogical nature of rabbinic writings is well known... the same may be said about the Torah itself and the Tanakh generally. It is for this reason I resist attempts at harmonizing, for example, Exod 34:1/Deut 10:4 with 34:28 --- it does a disservice to the texts themselves at the grammatical and syntactical levels, as outlined above, as well as to the variant traditions that the compilers sought to preserve side-by-side or intertwined rather than mash them into a coherent single story.

ויאמר. ואע"פ שכבר היו כתובים כתבם פעם אחרת עם עשרת הדברים. על כן נכתבה הפרשה הזאת פעמים: AND THE LORD SAID. Even though these things were already written, Moses wrote them again with the Decalogue. This section was therefore written twice.

I've included an additional comment from Ibn Ezra to give a full perspective on his opinion. From sefaria as well.

As noted above, this is Ibn Ezra's comments on the preceding verse... the phrase כתבם פעם אחרת עם עשרת הדברים (he wrote them another time with the ten words) appears to be the source of earlier confusion with respect to the verse following and does beg the question of what writing he is referring to if, as he proceeds to argue and you have affirmed, it was the deity who wrote on the tablets. Indeed, this approach to verse 28 eliminates the carrying out of the divine imperative to Moses in verse 27... here it is so we don't forget about it:

ויאמר יהוה אל־משה כתב־לך את־הדברים האלה
כי על־פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת־ישראל
And YHWH said to Moses: "Write for yourself these words,
for by the declaration of these words I have cut a covenant with you and with Israel."

This imperative flows naturally into Moses doing so in verse 28 (see analysis above)... if you switch the subject of that writing to the deity, however, Moses' obedience to this command is at best left implied and at worse ignored. It further begs the question of what document is in view and why it would even be needed. As Ibn Ezra correctly points out, the substance of Exod 34:11-26 שכבר היו כתובים (was already written)... it appears predominantly in chapter 23, which was part of the covenant regulations (20:23-23:33) that Moses set to writing according to 24:4, called "the book of covenant" in 24:7. That נכתבה הפרשה הזאת פעמים (this section was written twice) is true only as a description of the Torah itself rather than the story it purports to tell... the boundaries between the book and the story world are thus being blurred in a way that is not exegetically sound. Within the narrative, what Moses is asked to write down is completely superfluous given the existence of the "book of the covenant" for the community and, according to your interpretation, the divinely-written decalogue on the tablets for insertion into the ark. Perhaps you could expand on Ibn Ezra's terse comments to address these concerns...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

And YHWH said to Moses: "Write for yourself these words,
for by the declaration of these words I have cut a covenant with you and with Israel."

This imperative flows naturally into Moses doing so in verse 28 (see analysis above)... if you switch the subject of that writing to the deity, however, Moses' obedience to this command is at best left implied and at worse ignored. It further begs the question of what document is in view and why it would even be needed. As Ibn Ezra correctly points out, the substance of Exod 34:11-26 שכבר היו כתובים (was already written)... it appears predominantly in chapter 23, which was part of the covenant regulations (20:23-23:33) that Moses set to writing according to 24:4, called "the book of covenant" in 24:7. That נכתבה הפרשה הזאת פעמים (this section was written twice) is true only as a description of the Torah itself rather than the story it purports to tell... the boundaries between the book and the story world are thus being blurred in a way that is not exegetically sound. Within the narrative, what Moses is asked to write down is completely superfluous given the existence of the "book of the covenant" for the community and, according to your interpretation, the divinely-written decalogue on the tablets for insertion into the ark.

I'm not following what you wrote in the bolded section above.
I find this portion pertinent to what I've been thinking all along "Within the narrative, what Moses is asked to write down is completely superfluous given the existence of the "book of the covenant" for the community ". As to why Ex 34: 11-16 is to be written on the tablets is unreasonable and illogical to me.

What do you mean by the blurring of the book (of the covenant) and the story world?
Is this a description *story world" of what you would use in the world of historical critical methodology when you explain what you believe to be historical fiction?

 

[En Hakkore]

I'm not following what you wrote in the bolded section above.
I find this portion pertinent to what I've been thinking all along "Within the narrative, what Moses is asked to write down is completely superfluous given the existence of the "book of the covenant" for the community ". As to why Ex 34: 11-16 is to be written on the tablets is unreasonable and illogical to me.

I've underlined "for the community" as it is an important qualification for the point I was making... as you know from my views presented elsewhere, I reject Exod 20:1-17 as being original to the earliest-recoverable story in Exodus, therefore this text cannot be what was on either the first set of tablets that were destroyed or the second set of tablets that were eventually placed inside the ark according to Exod 40:20... here it is referred to simply as "the testimony" and, as established by 34:27-28, its contents were the covenant words of 34:11-26. Tucked away within the ark inside the tabernacle, its contents were not visible to the Israelite community. They did possess, however, the "book of the covenant" which, as you noted, contain all of these commandments in some form or another within its contents. The "testimony" and "book of the covenant" each serve a particular purpose and the existence of both is not superfluous in any way. The same cannot be said, however, if one posits (as my interlocutor does) that the deity wrote the words of 20:1-17 on the second set of tablets and that Moses wrote the words of 34:11-26 as some other ill-defined document... now we do have a superfluous copy of these commandments available to the community, once in the "book of the covenant" and again on this other document, which is not the "testimony" placed inside the ark. Hope this helps clarify my earlier comments...

What do you mean by the blurring of the book (of the covenant) and the story world?
Is this a description *story world" of what you would use in the world of historical critical methodology when you explain what you believe to be historical fiction?

While I do happen to think the narratives of the Torah are historical fiction, my use of "story world" was not intended to signal this per se but rather to designate the world described in the Torah's stories.. that is, we are reading about a group of Israelite slaves escaping from Egypt and meeting with their deity at a mountain where their leader (Moses) is said to write particular documents (whether any of this happened or not is inconsequential to the point that follows). The book to which I was referring was not the "book of the covenant" but the Torah itself and the blurring is that the duplicated words that Ibn Ezra refers to describes an aspect of what we as readers encounter in the Torah rather than something that occurs within its story. Hope this clarifies this portion of my earlier post...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Jewjitzu]

I've grouped together your comments in order to bring focus to our unfolding discussion, though various points continue to interrelate... for example, what Moses wrote and when if not on the tablets as you affirm here continues to present as an unanswered set of questions (more on this below when I engage with Ibn Ezra's comments on Exod 34:27).

Ok.

Moses is the subject of the verb based on the syntax of Exod 34:28... I don't see that you've addressed what I already posted on this matter.

I don't see Moses is the subject due to the context of Exodus 34:1 clearly explaining who would write the tablet, and in the same manner.

Here it is again with the text supplied to illustrate what I'm talking about: The verb is linked in a consecutive chain with the first verb of the verse and between which are two other verbs... the syntax demands the same subject for all four verbs and that is clearly Moses.

ויהי־שם עם־יהוה ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה
לחם לא אכל ומים לא שתה
ויכתב על־הלחת את דברי הברית
עשרת הדברים
And he was there with YHWH forty days and forty nights
He ate not bread and he drank not water
And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant
The ten words

The subject of all four verbs is Moses... this is as explicit as it needs to be in terse Hebrew narrative with two characters alone on a mountain and one of them (ie. the deity) named as the one with whom the subject is present in the prepositional clause following the first verbal clause. It is grammatically unacceptable to posit a different subject for the fourth verb... this could only be achieved by making the switch explicit by the insertion of that subject: ויכתב יהוה על־הלחת את דברי הברית.

Based on what? Who determined those rules?

Interpolating the subject from an assertion made twenty-seven verses earlier in the narrative is an absurd practice in any language.

In your understanding, are there exceptions to your rule?

I believe I asked this previously, but why do you think so many commentaries, Christian and Jewish alike, say God wrote in v28?

You're welcome and props on acknowledging the mistake. Does this also mean you retract your argument about reading את in 34:28 as a preposition rather than a direct object marker? Ibn Ezra, when he makes a similar comment (more on that below), notably uses the more typical preposition עם to express "with".

Yes, that was my mistake in understanding another commentary on Ibn Ezra. I should have gone to the source.

That's fine provided it is clear what you're doing and you reject, as you have now, any option that does not withstand critical scrutiny.

I reject my previous misunderstanding of Ibn Ezra. I'm not acknowledging anything else.

The dialogical nature of rabbinic writings is well known... the same may be said about the Torah itself and the Tanakh generally. It is for this reason I resist attempts at harmonizing, for example, Exod 34:1/Deut 10:4 with 34:28 --- it does a disservice to the texts themselves at the grammatical and syntactical levels, as outlined above, as well as to the variant traditions that the compilers sought to preserve side-by-side or intertwined rather than mash them into a coherent single story.

I think you need to understand context and background as well. Knowing that God has commanded Moses to write a book of the covenant back in Exodus 24:7. Looking at Exodus 34:27-28, there's a difference between what Moses is asked to write, brit, a covenant, vs. habrit, the covenant.

Moses is merely writing down the basis for entering again the same covenant with v14-v26, in the book of the covenant.

As noted above, this is Ibn Ezra's comments on the preceding verse... the phrase כתבם פעם אחרת עם עשרת הדברים (he wrote them another time with the ten words) appears to be the source of earlier confusion with respect to the verse following and does beg the question of what writing he is referring to if, as he proceeds to argue and you have affirmed, it was the deity who wrote on the tablets. Indeed, this approach to verse 28 eliminates the carrying out of the divine imperative to Moses in verse 27... here it is so we don't forget about it:

ויאמר יהוה אל־משה כתב־לך את־הדברים האלה
כי על־פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת־ישראל
And YHWH said to Moses: "Write for yourself these words,
for by the declaration of these words I have cut a covenant with you and with Israel."

I think I explained this above with Moses writing the book of the covenant.

This imperative flows naturally into Moses doing so in verse 28 (see analysis above)... if you switch the subject of that writing to the deity, however, Moses' obedience to this command is at best left implied and at worse ignored.

But, he would be ignoring God's word that God Himself would write on the tablets.

It further begs the question of what document is in view and why it would even be needed. As Ibn Ezra correctly points out, the substance of Exod 34:11-26 שכבר היו כתובים (was already written)... it appears predominantly in chapter 23, which was part of the covenant regulations (20:23-23:33) that Moses set to writing according to 24:4, called "the book of covenant" in 24:7. That נכתבה הפרשה הזאת פעמים (this section was written twice) is true only as a description of the Torah itself rather than the story it purports to tell... the boundaries between the book and the story world are thus being blurred in a way that is not exegetically sound. Within the narrative, what Moses is asked to write down is completely superfluous given the existence of the "book of the covenant" for the community and, according to your interpretation, the divinely-written decalogue on the tablets for insertion into the ark.

The book of covenant grew as Moses was asked to write things down.

This book was also inserted into the ark with the tablets.

I believe what Ibn Ezra is referring to is one book of the covenant associated with the first tablets and another book with the 2nd set.

Perhaps you could expand on Ibn Ezra's terse comments to address these concerns...

I tried above.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Likewise.

 

[En Hakkore]

I don't see Moses is the subject due to the context of Exodus 34:1 clearly explaining who would write the tablet, and in the same manner.

Exod 34:1 narrates the deity's intention to write on the tablets the same words as before (whatever those were). Even if I were to concede for the sake of argument we are dealing with a unified story rather than a composite text reflecting different traditions, the deity's subsequent imperative to Moses to do the writing and the carrying out of that by Moses in the verse following could simply indicate the deity changed his mind... there are other examples of him doing this in the Torah.

Based on what? Who determined those rules?

In your understanding, are there exceptions to your rule?

It's not my rule, it's a convention of Hebrew narrative, which should be familiar enough to you. If there is a bona fide exception to this practice, one analogous to the situation at hand, the burden is yours to produce it as a counter-argument, not mine. In any case, I can't think of an example off the top of my head and I've translated the entirety of the Pentateuch and Former Prophets from scratch, as well as read all the other narrative portions of the Hebrew Bible.

I believe I asked this previously, but why do you think so many commentaries, Christian and Jewish alike, say God wrote in v28?

I don't recall you asking this before... in any case, it has not been established that "so many commentaries" support your position. Even if this were the case, their value as resources would need to taken into consideration --- a lot has been written about the various biblical books and most of it is probably not even worth reading. As you know, my standard is peer-reviewed scholarship... and there is no shortage of that in support of my position. Here is a small cross-section representing both Jewish and Christian scholars, conservative and progressive:

Moses is commanded to write the laws [of 34:11-26] and does so in spite of YHWH's proposal at the outset to write them himself. (Blenkinsopp 193)

following divine instructions, Moses carved two blank stone tablets and went back up the mountain. There God dictated to him the Ten Commandments, which this time Moses rather than God wrote on the tablets. (Coogan 31)

Moses is credited with having written specific items... Exod. 34:27-28 [preceding commands, Ten Commandments...] (Kitchen 304)

The stone tablets containing the "ten words" (presumably referring to the Ten Commandments) are written not in heaven but on earth, either by God (Exod 24:12; 31:18; Deut 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2, 4) or by Moses (Exod 34:28). (Knight 55)

He wrote down on the tablets the terms of the covenant, the Ten Commandments: In view of v. 1 and Deut. 10.4 this seems to mean that God wrote down the Decalogue, so that two covenant documents -- vv. 11-26 and the Decalogue -- resulted from this encounter, just as the terms of the earlier covenant included both the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant (24.4, 7-8, 12; 31:18). But in the immediate context he wrote is most naturally construed as referring to Moses and the terms of the covenant as referring to the terms mentioned in vv. 11-26; this explains why some scholars call these verses the Cultic Dialogue. Their identification as the Decalogue -- which God was to write on the tablets (v. 1) -- is puzzling. The present text appears to combine two different traditions about what the terms of the covenant were. (Tigay 191)

I think you need to understand context and background as well. Knowing that God has commanded Moses to write a book of the covenant back in Exodus 24:7. Looking at Exodus 34:27-28, there's a difference between what Moses is asked to write, brit, a covenant, vs. habrit, the covenant.

What point you're trying to make between the articulated and non-articulated covenants is not clear... please clarify it.

Moses is merely writing down the basis for entering again the same covenant with v14-v26, in the book of the covenant.

On what basis are you suggesting a supplement to the earlier "book of the covenant" was the result of the imperative in 34:27? It is pure conjecture in order to fill the gap left by dropping Moses as the subject of the verb כתב in the following verse. The "book of the covenant" already contained these covenant words... it would be utterly pointless to write them down in the same book a second time.

But, he would be ignoring God's word that God Himself would write on the tablets.

As noted above, if one is forced to undertake a synchronic reading of the story, the imperative of 34:27 supersedes the intention expressed at 34:1.

The book of covenant grew as Moses was asked to write things down.

Do you have any evidence for this besides as an ad hoc explanation to solve the problem being discussed?

This book was also inserted into the ark with the tablets.

What is your evidence that "the book of the covenant" written in 24:4 was ever inserted into the ark?

I believe what Ibn Ezra is referring to is one book of the covenant associated with the first tablets and another book with the 2nd set.

Now we've got two books of the covenant?

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (Anchor Bible Reference Library; Doubleday, 1992)
Coogan, Michael. The Ten Commandments: A Short History of an Ancient Text (Yale University Press, 2014)
Kitchen, K.A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2003)
Knight, Douglas A. Law, Power, and Justice in Ancient Israel (Library of Ancient Israel; WJK Press, 2011)
Tigay, Jeffrey H. "Exodus" in The Jewish Study Bible, edited by Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford University Press, 2004)

 

[Jewjitzu]

Exod 34:1 narrates the deity's intention to write on the tablets the same words as before (whatever those were). Even if I were to concede for the sake of argument we are dealing with a unified story rather than a composite text reflecting different traditions, the deity's subsequent imperative to Moses to do the writing and the carrying out of that by Moses in the verse following could simply indicate the deity changed his mind... there are other examples of him doing this in the Torah.

You haven't proved God changed His mind here. God did ask Moses to write the commands in v14-26, brit, not the habrit. I don't see where you addressed that.

It's not my rule, it's a convention of Hebrew narrative, which should be familiar enough to you. If there is a bona fide exception to this practice, one analogous to the situation at hand, the burden is yours to produce it as a counter-argument, not mine. In any case, I can't think of an example off the top of my head and I've translated the entirety of the Pentateuch and Former Prophets from scratch, as well as read all the other narrative portions of the Hebrew Bible.

So, there are no examples where the remote antecedent can be the relative pronoun referenced in this verse v28?

I don't recall you asking this before... in any case, it has not been established that "so many commentaries" support your position. Even if this were the case, their value as resources would need to taken into consideration --- a lot has been written about the various biblical books and most of it is probably not even worth reading. As you know, my standard is peer-reviewed scholarship... and there is no shortage of that in support of my position. Here is a small cross-section representing both Jewish and Christian scholars, conservative and progressive:

Moses is commanded to write the laws [of 34:11-26] and does so in spite of YHWH's proposal at the outset to write them himself. (Blenkinsopp 193)

following divine instructions, Moses carved two blank stone tablets and went back up the mountain. There God dictated to him the Ten Commandments, which this time Moses rather than God wrote on the tablets. (Coogan 31)

Moses is credited with having written specific items... Exod. 34:27-28 [preceding commands, Ten Commandments...] (Kitchen 304)

The stone tablets containing the "ten words" (presumably referring to the Ten Commandments) are written not in heaven but on earth, either by God (Exod 24:12; 31:18; Deut 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2, 4) or by Moses (Exod 34:28). (Knight 55)

He wrote down on the tablets the terms of the covenant, the Ten Commandments: In view of v. 1 and Deut. 10.4 this seems to mean that God wrote down the Decalogue, so that two covenant documents -- vv. 11-26 and the Decalogue -- resulted from this encounter, just as the terms of the earlier covenant included both the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant (24.4, 7-8, 12; 31:18). But in the immediate context he wrote is most naturally construed as referring to Moses and the terms of the covenant as referring to the terms mentioned in vv. 11-26; this explains why some scholars call these verses the Cultic Dialogue. Their identification as the Decalogue -- which God was to write on the tablets (v. 1) -- is puzzling. The present text appears to combine two different traditions about what the terms of the covenant were. (Tigay 191)

Ok, have you by chance seen the commentaries on BibleHub, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/exodus/34-28.htm ?

What point you're trying to make between the articulated and non-articulated covenants is not clear... please clarify it.

Wouldn't the definition article point to two different covenants being spoke of, brit vs habrit?

On what basis are you suggesting a supplement to the earlier "book of the covenant" was the result of the imperative in 34:27? It is pure conjecture in order to fill the gap left by dropping Moses as the subject of the verb כתב in the following verse. The "book of the covenant" already contained these covenant words... it would be utterly pointless to write them down in the same book a second time.

But then you believe belief in a deity is pointless too, so why does it matter? Anyway, the definite article in habrit v28 points to something different than v27 brit.

As noted above, if one is forced to undertake a synchronic reading of the story, the imperative of 34:27 supersedes the intention expressed at 34:1.

Not really, 34:1 provides the context, and v27 points to v14-26. BTW, who abstained from eating and drinking?

Do you have any evidence for this besides as an ad hoc explanation to solve the problem being discussed?

Deut 31:9 is an example. Where do you think this was written down?

What is your evidence that "the book of the covenant" written in 24:4 was ever inserted into the ark?

Deuteronomy 31:26 tells me this. I understand that the book was placed inside on the side of the ark.

Now we've got two books of the covenant?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

The first book didn't have v14-v26.

 

[Caroljeen]

You haven't proved God changed His mind here. God did ask Moses to write the commands in v14-26, brit, not the habrit. I don't see where you addressed that.

What does brit and habrit mean?

 

[Jewjitzu]

What does brit and habrit mean?

Brit means a covenant in Hebrew. Habrit means the covenant.

 

[En Hakkore]

You haven't proved God changed His mind here.

Of course not... nor could I --- my hypothetical solution was aimed at making the point that the knife can slice at least two ways if one forces a synchronic reading of the chapter. You have no more or less proof from the immediate context that the deity wrote on the tablets than I would have if I argued that he changed his mind to have Moses write on them. My position is to allow the tension to remain... these kinds of conflicts can be found all over the Torah because it is a composite document. Attempting to harmonize them leads to ignoring the plain reading of one or both conflicting data sets...

God did ask Moses to write the commands in v14-26, brit, not the habrit. I don't see where you addressed that.

I didn't address it because what point you were making wasn't clear and so I asked for clarification... see below my response to what you provided.

So, there are no examples where the remote antecedent can be the relative pronoun referenced in this verse v28?

There are no pronouns, relative or otherwise, in the Hebrew of Exod 34:28... your question seems to be based on the wording of Matthew Poole's commentary in the link you provided, which I should point out is in the English expository column rather than the original language exegetical column. If you want to make a specific argument about the Hebrew, feel free to do so... I'm not interested, however, in engaging with the above uncritical recycling of a 17th-century commentary written by a maverick English theologian.

Ok, have you by chance seen the commentaries on BibleHub, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/exodus/34-28.htm ?

I have now... commentaries available in the public domain dating from the 16th through 19th centuries are of no interest or value to me unless I were to write a history-of-scholarship section for an essay or book. Do you think these centuries' old musings constitute peer-reviewed scholarship that compares with the five citations I provided? Sorry, no... not even close. You'll note that several of the linked commentaries admit to understanding the subject as the Israelite deity in order to achieve harmonization with 34:1 and/or Deut 10:4. That's not how contemporary critical scholars work...

Wouldn't the definition article point to two different covenants being spoke of, brit vs habrit?

It's called the definite (not definition) article and no, it does not point to two different covenants... its presence or lack thereof is determined by the sense of a clause in context and/or idiosyncrasies of Hebrew grammar. For example:

YHWH our god cut a covenant {indefinite noun} with us at Horeb; YHWH did not cut this covenant [lit. the covenant {definite noun} the this] with our fathers but with us... (Deut 5:2-3a)

While the first occurrence of ברית is indefinite and the second is definite (that is, הברית), both references are to one and the same covenant... likewise in Exodus 34. The deity purposes to cut a covenant {indefinite noun} in verse 10, proceeds in verses 11 through 26 to outline the terms of this covenant, commands Moses in verse 27 to write these words since by the declaration of these words he has cut a covenant {indefinite noun} with him and with Israel. Moses, the subject of all the verbs in verse 28, proceeds to write the covenant {definite noun} words on the stone tablets... as with the example from Deuteronomy, this is a reference to one and the same covenant --- the definite article in verse 28 is demanded for the absolute noun terminating a chain with a plural in construct with it (ie. words), which term further connects the verses, an imperative with the carrying out of that divine command.

But then you believe belief in a deity is pointless too, so why does it matter?

This comment is pointless and distracting... please stick to the texts under consideration.

BTW, who abstained from eating and drinking?

Moses.

Deut 31:9 is an example. Where do you think this was written down?

On a scroll... there is nothing here to suggest that it was added to an existing text (ie. the "book of the covenant") written forty years earlier.

Deuteronomy 31:26 tells me this. I understand that the book was placed inside on the side of the ark.

First, your claim that this book was placed inside the ark goes beyond what this text says, which is only מצד (at the side of), translated beside the ark in both JPS and NRSV (see also the use of this compound preposition in Josh 12:9; 1 Sam 6:8; 20:25 and Ruth 2:14 where it clearly does not mean inside on the side). Second, the book that Moses writes in Deut 31:24 is what's placed beside the ark... this book is said to contain the words of "this law" --- that which has just been given to the Israelites east of the Jordan forty years after their escape from Egypt (cf. Deut 1:1-5).

The first book didn't have v14-v26.

Of course the (one and only) book did... the contents of these verses are found within the bounds of the covenant code (Exod 20:23-23:33), most of them concentrated toward the end of the book in which they were written according to 24:4 --- while not all are verbatim, the substance of all are there.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

It's called the definite (not definition) article and no, it does not point to two different covenants... its presence or lack thereof is determined by the sense of a clause in context and/or idiosyncrasies of Hebrew grammar. For example:

YHWH our god cut a covenant {indefinite noun} with us at Horeb; YHWH did not cut this covenant [lit. the covenant {definite noun} the this] with our fathers but with us... (Deut 5:2-3a)

While the first occurrence of ברית is indefinite and the second is definite (that is, הברית), both references are to one and the same covenant... likewise in Exodus 34. The deity purposes to cut a covenant {indefinite noun} in verse 10, proceeds in verses 11 through 26 to outline the terms of this covenant, commands Moses in verse 27 to write these words since by the declaration of these words he has cut a covenant {indefinite noun} with him and with Israel. Moses, the subject of all the verbs in verse 28, proceeds to write the covenant {definite noun} words on the stone tablets... as with the example from Deuteronomy, this is a reference to one and the same covenant --- the definite article in verse 28 is demanded for the absolute noun terminating a chain with a plural in construct with it (ie. words), which term further connects the verses, an imperative with the carrying out of that divine command.

Thanks for the clarification