Not really, v1 says God was intent on writing them. V28 confirms it.There's no reason to make this assumption unless one is committed to trying to harmonize disparate traditions within the Torah.
Ok, that's great. Moses didn't write the second tablets either. It's not supported anywhere.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.
Maybe not standard, but not out of the question.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:
Not really, there are always the exceptions to the rule. I'm sure you've run across that.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.
And yet nothing is said about him writing on any tablets. So, what do you do now?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.
Sure. Ibn Ezra. Find his commentary on the verse. In any case, my idea stands.You believe he mused so but cannot find the source of it? In any case, the critique above stands...
Actually, nothing says Moses wrote on the tablets. The "He" is God, as elaborated in Deut 10:1-4 as you pointed out yourself.It conflicts with Exod 34:27-28 that Moses wrote the "ten words" on these tablets.
So, you think Genesis was written first too? Either way, the verses you gave in Deuteronomy should clarify Exodus for you.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?
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.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.
Not really but you're entitled to your thinking.Not really because it's a tortured reading of the text, as outlined above...