Talk:Ritual Decalogue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Judaism Portal
Ritual Decalogue is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 8, 2005. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Contents

[edit] Biblical Context

The biblical context section is somewhat confusing. I am editing it to remove some ambiguity and overly wordy-ness. 65.79.30.55 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

While it is shorter, I'm not crazy about your edits in this section. I think its a little less precise. I don't think the subject is what it 'is the ten commandments', thats a bit subject to religous interp and POV, I think the subject should be what the canon id's as written on the second set of stone, and what the canon calls the ten commandant. So I'm concidering reverting, if you don't object. Also, the would "actually" (when ref to 'so scholars believe') I believe is predjidicial, imply shock. Steve kap 19:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit it still needs work. I hope that the problems that are left are at least mostly because too little was changed, not because the changes were off track. (For instance, the use of the word "actually." I was trying to create a more straight-forward reading. Where do you feel it has lost precision? The old version, in my mind, unnecessarily included the phrase "(Which is the set placed whole in the ark of the covenant)" It also didn't make sense to say, Moses "destroyed the two tablets of stone which held the original ten commandments (that is, the Ritual Decalogue)," and then continue by assuming that the original commandments were the ethical commandments. (By saying that: "Christianity and Judaism consider the second set of tablets to contain the same commandments as the first," in disagreement with scholars.) I am not sure when this was introduced into the paragraph. As far as I can tell, the lost data is limited to the placement of the tablets in the ark, and possibly that Christianity/Judaism believe the ethical Decalogue was on the original tablets. I tried to contain the original information in a more clear way.

Perhaps the sentence "While Christianity... biblical text" can be clarified somewhat? removal of "actually," and expanded/altered to say "written on the tablets." The text quoted is, I believe, used by scholars to show both that the ritual Decalogue was written on the tablets and that it was referred to as the "ten words." 65.79.30.55 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after reading thru the history, I see where you are coming from. Yes, I think that 'actually' maybe should go. I think the lack of percition come from the differents between what IS the ten commandment, and what the canon IDS as the 10C. Exudus can ID the RTC as THE 10C (which I believe it does),and scholars can state that (which I think some do), and still people have a right to think of the ATC as "the Ten commandment". I don't think the issue is what IS the 10C, just what exudus clearly ID's as the 10C. I might be splitting hairs. Steve kap 23:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I understand the change you are looking for. The text currently says that the "Torah actually identifies the Ritual decalogue as the Ten Commandments." I think that makes the point you are going for. Is there another line where you think the distinction should be made more clear? 65.79.30.55 01:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real?

I know a lot of people are going to object that these aren't the real Ten Commandments, but please bear in mind that they are identified as one version of the Ten Commandments by no less than the annotated New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

Also, if anyone has any information on the fate of this version, why it was replaced in popular understanding with the Deuternonomy 5 version, please expand the article. I no longer have access to the refs that said the switch was due to the destruction of the Temple, and in any case there may well be other ideas out there. —kwami 04:00, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

I have a theory about why these have been replaced in popular understanding by Deut 5. Its that these seems so irrelevent and silly to the modern reader. No one want to beleive that their religon is irrelevent or silly, so they read what they want, and read into it what they want it to say. Just my POV. You asked. SAK

[edit] Boiling a kid

The following comment on You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk has been deleted a couple times:

While some people find it puzzling that this would warrant a commandment, such cooking taboos are common in East Africa and the Mid East, where it is often believed that using an animal's milk to cook her own young will cause her to go dry or even kill her. In herding societies that depend on their livestock this could be a disaster, and some scholars have speculated that this could be the origin of this commandment.

I am no longer in the city where I found this in the library, and am not about to track it down. But this is rudimentary anthropology, and not in itself a controversial statement. (It may be controversial to apply anthropology to Biblical analysis, but then Biblical analysis is inherently controversial.) If I find my notes (which were packed up for the move) I'll restore it with its source. kwami 18:45, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the statement was probably an attempt to explain the Biblical prohibition, not based on factual evidence, but on conjecture. I've often heard that the reason for the choq is "kid boiled in its mother's milk was regarded as a delicacy in Egypt, which is why it's prohibited in the Bible", although there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a statement. My guess is that the statement you're talking about is just another "wild guess", otherwise knowledge of that take on it would be widespread, rather than something you have to track down in an obscure source. Tomer TALK 05:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
It was speculation, yes, but I said that explicitly, and it's no more speculative than many of the ideas in the Ten Commandments article. As for how obscure it is, I'm not likely to find more than a couple sources at my local library that go into any kind of depth for the ritual commandments in the first place, let alone ones that make the same point. The point, although circumstantial, was reasonable: many pastoralist peoples throughout the Mideast and East Africa have cooking taboos against mixing meat and milk; in many of them this is rooted in a belief in sympathetic magic, that using an animal for the destruction of its calf/kid will harm the parent animal as well. If you then come across another pastoralist people in the same region that also has such a taboo, like the Hebrews, it's reasonable to suggest that their beliefs may be related. kwami 07:11, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

Well, it might be reasonable to suggest that when you're having a casual conversation in a bar, but in Wikipedia that counts as original research, unless it can be cited from an encyclopedic source. Jayjg (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What a silly thing to say. It's on this page because I don't recall the source, not because I made it up. Unless you're suggesting that documenting things in a library counts as original research? Besides, we shouldn't be citing other encyclopedias. They're generally a poor source of information. kwami 20:06, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

People's memories are notoriously poor; that's why it needs to be sourced. Oh, and "encyclopedic" does not mean "comes from an encyclopedia", but rather "is worthy of an encyclopedia".Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with you entirely. That's why I'm not fighting to keep this in the article. I'm not sure it's worth my time, but if I ever find the source, we can then debate whether it warrants inclusion. The wording of your comment was such that you seemed to be saying that speculation, even with a good source backing it up, counted as original research and was only worth mentioning in idle chitchat. That's what I thought was silly. kwami 23:03, 2005 July 28 (UTC)

[edit] other deletions

Hi Jayjg,

You've removed some other material, calling it 'bizzarre' or 'POV'. Bizzarre it may be, but it can all be found in the refs. In fact, the absence of the word Sabbath and the Biblical names of the festivals is one of the reasons that many scholars consider this to be older than the ethical commandments. This can probably be expanded. kwami 19:09, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

BTW, calling Yahweh 'God' is POV; many people would disagree with you. The Covenant is between a particular deity and Israel, not with whoever one may conceive of as God.

Yahweh leads to Tetragrammaton, which discusses the 4 letter name, not the deity itself. God discusses the deity, and God is the English name for the deity of the Bible. The other material was not referenced in any clear way in the article. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
God discusses many deities, or at least many conceptions of the deity, besides Jehovah. We could keep the link but disambiguate the name. The English name 'God' is ambiguous in the extreme; the name 'Yahweh' (or 'Jehovah' if you prefer) is not. kwami 21:58, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

The article you have linked to (Yahweh) simply does not deal with the deity, but rather deals with the word itself. God deals with the God of the Bible. Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I am Jewish, and I will say that G-d is absolutely not called "Yahweh". Ask any Jewish person if Yahweh is G-d's name, and they will say NO.

[edit] Original source

Someone must have been the first to state that there is such a thing as a Ritual Decalogue. Who was that? Which "Scholars" are we talking about? Kwami, do something. Tell us which scholar it is, because I may end up VFDing the page for original research. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

What am I, the OED? I have absolutely no idea who the first person to use the term was. If you have the entire cannon of biblical scholarship in your library, and a couple years to spend looking through it, knock yourself out. I don't have such resources. But it doesn't matter: the three sources I provided are enough to demonstrate that this term is used in biblical scholarship, especially when one is the annotated New Revised Standard Version of the Bible itself! kwami 21:58, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
It does appear to be a mass of original research. Jayjg (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
If you consider quoting the annotated NRSV, and quoting or paraphrasing standard biblical commentaries, to be 'original research', then you've set an impossibly high standard, and all the biblical articles could be condemned the same way.
Everyone quotes sources when doing original research; it's how they put it together that makes it original. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Meanwhile, please stop deleting information you dislike or find "bizarre". I don't object to deleting the goat in milk comment, because I cannot produce the source for that. And I asked above for help locating the ref for the reasons the ritual version was abandoned; I'm sure there's a lot of more detailed information out there, but I'll track down my rather minimal source again if need be. But the other stuff is right there in the sources I provided. If you want to confirm it, great. That's what references are for. But don't delete things you haven't bothered to check. kwami 21:58, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

I'm deleting bizarre material that doesn't appear to be sourced. If you want it kept, provide sources. Jayjg (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll state it again: which religious scholar was the first to come up with the concept of a "Ritual Decalogue"? Will you please provide this, instead of piling up secondary references. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

And I'll state it again: I don't know. And it isn't important. In no other article in Wikipedia is it required to find the first historical mention of a term. It would be of historical interest, of course, and I wish I did know, but it isn't essential for the purposes of this article. Nowhere in the Ten Commandments article, for example, does it say who first used the phrase 'Ten Commandments' (which means something rather different than the Hebrew and Greek 'ten words/phrases'). I don't know why you're so hung up on this. It doesn't matter who first used the term, what matters is that it is a term used widely in biblical scholarship.
Plug 'Ritual Decalogue' into Google and you gets plenty of hits, some of them quite respectable. For instance there's Prof Bandstra in the Department of Religion at Hope College; he provides an online html copy of the Bible and article on 'Reading the Old Testament' that uses the term at [1]. There are plenty of additional refs about the Book of Exodus in the bibliography. I'm not about to spend $5 a piece to get them all through interlibary loan in the hopes that one will note who invented the term 'ritual decalogue', but you're welcome to try. kwami 23:03, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

The article definitely looks like original research in the sense of presenting a new analysis / perspective on a primary source that is only marginally based on what has been said in published commentary. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you specify which sections you feel are unjustified? kwami 23:03, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
Well, all of them. If you just read this you will see it was Wellhausen, possibly inspired by Goethe. I can't be bothered to insert the citation, so here's some work for Kwami.
By the way, the overexposure has now caused this page to come first in google:Ritual decalogue. JFW | T@lk 22:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the source. Some good stuff there. But while "The claim that Ex 34,11–26 represents an ancient ritual Decalogue goes back to Julius Wellhausen" is suggestive, I would of course have to read Wellhausen to know if he actually used that terminology, or if he merely started a current that later took that name. Since I don't read German, and am not likely to have access to his writings in any case, that's not something that I can easily verify. And of course it wouldn't answer the question: It could easily be the case that the phrase 'ritual decalogue' was already current in Wellhausen's time, and that he was merely the first to combine it with Goethe's claim that it was older than the TC. So the best I'd be able say was that the term can be traced back at least to W. kwami 07:53, 2005 August 7 (UTC)

I wouldn't neglect the Goethe reference! JFW | T@lk 14:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to! Anyway, here's what's I've found on Wellhausen:
Childs, 1979. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture
p. 165. ... after Kuenen's criticism Wellhausen agreed that the Book fo the Covenant did not belong to J. That decision cleared the way for him to distinguish between E's 'ethical decalogue' (ch. 20) and J's 'cultic decalogue' (ch. 34).
Not exactly the same words (but then we are translating from the German), and not specifically attributed to him. But evidently at least in use by his time if he didn't invent the term. Presumably Goethe didn't use it (evidence from omission), but this will take some follow up to get to the bottom of. kwami 02:38, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article is nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ritual Decalogue. Thank you. IZAK 09:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that the vote for deletion is over, perhaps now is a good time to look back on this debate, to see what could be learned from it. Someone made the comment that the voters for deletion did so for idealogical reasons, and of course this is so. But why? Why would people with strong Christian or Jewish backgrounds (see their home pages) want to delete an article about the THEIR BIBLE? I think that answer is obvious to us all. Its the elephant in the room. Steve kap 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] additional refs

An additional reputable source if anyone's interested (Bible Review wrote "A remarkable work..Friedman is to be congratulated", for what that's worth.)

  • 34:28. the Ten Commandments. The second set of the commandments appears here in vv. 14-26. Three of them are similar to the commandments that appear in Exodus 20: the commandment against bowing to other gods (34:14-16), the commandment against molten gods (v. 17), and the commandment to cease work on the seventh day (v. 21). The other seven are different from the Ten Commandments that God speaks aloud over Sinai. In critical biblical scholarship we understand these two versions of the Decalogue to come from two different ancient sources. But how are we to understand them in the final form of the Torah? The answer may lie in a second contradiction: In the first verse of this chapter God tells Moses that "I'll write on the tablets the words that were in the first tablets." But now God tells Moses, "Write these words for yourself" (34:27). Perhaps we should understand this to mean that God writes the words on one side of the tablets, and Moses writes the words of the second set of commandments on the other side. As is commonly noted, the majority of the first set are ethical commandments, involving relations between humans and other humans: don't murder, don't steal, ... The second set are mainly ritual commandments: Observe the holidays, redeem the first born, don't sacrifice with leaven, ... The two sets are thus complementary, involving the two essential kinds of commandments: relations between humans and humans, and relations between humans and God.
Friedman, 2003. Commentary on the Torah.

Okay, here's another, much older, but with more detail.

Encyclopædia biblica: a critical dictionary of the literary political and religious history, the archæology geography and natural history of the Bible
Edited by the Rev. T. K. Cheyne, M.A., D.D.
Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford
and formerly Fellow of Balliol College
Canon of Rochester
and
J. Sutherland Black, M.A., L.L.D.
formerly assistant editor of the Encyclopædia britannica

Volume I, 1899

  • Entry for Decalogue
5. Second and older Decalogue.
The reasons against a date very much earlier are clinched by the modern discovery that there was another decalogue older in character. True, we cannot say for certain how each particular precept of this older decalogue ran. We do known, however, that reference is made to it by the Yahwist in Ex. 34:28, and further, that the decalogue itself is imbedded in 10-26, and there is, therefore, no doubt about its general character. Wellhausen's reconstruction is as follows:
[...]
The Yahwistic legend which encloses this decalogue is simpler and more natural, for here it is Moses, not Yahwè, who hews the tables and writes the words. The decalogue represents that ritual of outward worship which was essential to the early stages of national religion, but was subordinated to ethical monotheism by Amos and his successors. Yet even this decalogue must be put long after the time of Moses. The feasts mentioned imply an agricultural life, and must have been adopted by the Israelites after their settlement.

Volume II, 1901.

  • Entry for "Exodus (book)"
4. Laws in JE.
i. Ceremonial Decalogue. —Ex. 34:10-28 contains, as we have seen, the legislation of J. Its injunctions are exclusively religious : it forbids the worship of any other deity and the making of molten idols; commands the observance of the three annual feasts and of the Sabbath, the sacrifice of firstlings and the offering of first fruits; and prohibits certain rites which were probably associated with other cults. These laws are set forth as the terms of the covenant which Yahwe [sic] makes with Moses as the representative of Israel, and as such they are committed to writing by Moses (1027 f.). Ch. 34:10-26 thus presents itself as a counterpart to the 'Book of the Covenant' (247) which is contained in 21-23. In 34:28, however, we read that Moses remained forty days with Yahwè on the mountain, and he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the 'ten words.' From this it would seem that the commandments in 14-26 constituted J's decalogue, an older counterpart to the Ten Commandments in Ex. 20:1-17 Dt. 5:6-21* (see Decalogue). Upon this theory, 34:1 ff. containsJ's account of the origin of the two tables of the law; 16, and the words 'like the first' in 1a and 4a, which represent these tables as designed to take the place of the tables which Moses had broken (32:19), are harmonistic additions by the redactor who introduced 34 in this place. Kuenen, on the other hand, contends that 14:28b had orginally nothing to do with 10-27; they formed part of E's narrative, and the ten words are no other than E's decalogue (20:1-17). Whatever view be taken of the relation of 28 to 27, the phrase 'the ten words,' which collides with the preceding 'the words of the covenant,' seems to be a gloss, introduced under the influence of the deuteronomistic theory that the covenant was made upon the Decalogue alone (cp esp. Dt 4:13). If this be the case, there is no direct evidence that the laws in 34:10-26 were originally just ten in number. It may be suspected that the words 'upon the tables' which connect 28 with 1-4 are also secondary, and that the original sequel of 27 was closely similar to 24:4a 7 f., if, indeed, it be not contained in those verses (Valeton). On the other hand, 34:46, 'talking in his hand two tables of stone' ([Hebrew phrase here], indefinite), seems to be original; and it is perhaps on the whole more probable that the commandments of J also were inscribed on stone. Whether this is the oldest representation, and whether in the oldest Judæan tradition the commandments were given at Sinai or at some other place—perhaps at Kadesh&mdahs;are questions to which no certain answer can be given.
* This seems to have been first observed by Goethe, in 1773.
ii. Character and origin.—The laws in Ex. 34:10-28 are certainly older than the setting which represents them as the terms of a covenant made by Yahwè with Moses at Sinai; and are the earliest attempt with which we are acquainted to embody in a series of brief injunctions formulated as divine commands the essential observances of the religion of Yahwè. We may safely assume that this collection of sacred laws was made at a Judæan sanctuary, and that it represents the ancient usage of the region. The age of the collection can only be inferred from its contents.
The three annual feasts which occupy the central place in the cultus are agricultural festivals, and presume a people which had passed over to a settled life, to whom tillage is a chief concern. On the other hand, the idea of religion to which such laws as those that forbid the seething of a kid in its mother's milk, or the keeping of part of a sacrifice till the next morning, appear fundamental, is very primitive.** A still stronger indication of the antiquity of this legislation is the fact that the demands of Yahwè all have reference to the way in which he is to be worshipped. Religion seems to be as yet untouched by the prophetic movement whose burden was that what God demands is not worship but righteousness.
** It must be remembered, however, that such survivals of primitive religion, regarded as positive divine commands, are often carried along into much more advanced stages of development, as Judaism itself best illustrates.
In the strongest contrast to the fundamental revelation of Yahwè's will in J is the decalogue of Ex. 20:1-17. On the Deuteronomistic elements in this document and on its relation to Ex. 34:10 ff., see Decalogue, ss. 2. The narrative in Ex. 32 (golden calf) is inseparable from it, and is aimed at the religion of the kingdom of Israel; the repudiation of its idolatrous cult which we find in Hosea is carried back to Horeb. This narrative, therefore, also belongs to the prophetic edition of E (E2). The Decalogue seems to have supplanted the law given at Horeb in E. We may safely assume that this law was similar in character to that of J in 34:10 ff. ; and it is not improbable that fragments of it are preserved in 23:14 ff. Whether it constituted a decalogue must remain uncertain.

That is, Goethe is credited with recognizing the Ritual Decalogue as older than the Ethical Decalogue, but the actual term Ritual Decalogue is not used. Instead we find ceremonial decalogue. Of course, ceremonial, cultic, and ritual are the same concept. Note also that the Encyclopedia biblica speaks of "a decalogue" in Whether it constituted a decalogue must remain uncertain; in other words, there are at least two decalogues in the Bible, and perhaps there had been a third. —kwami 22:10, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

Terminology is not really a factor. Things often start off with different names. I think Goethe deserves the credit. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
He may deserve credit for recognizing the ritual decalogue as older than the ethical decalogue, but there is no indication he deserves credit for recognizing the ritual decalogue as a distinct decalogue. That presumably happened much earlier (perhaps for as long as the two texts existed), and that is the point of this article. If I understand correctly, the Oral Law makes a special point of explaining how the phrase TC in Ex. 34 actually refers to Ex. 20; this would suggest that when the Mishna was being written, students were raising this very question. kwami 23:17, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

[edit] Confused

I don't think there's a single Jewish and Christian source that actually identifies this set of ordinances as "the ten commandments" or "a ten commandments." I think all there are are non-Jewish, non-Christian people asserting that the text of the Bible itself makes this designation. This is one possible POV interpretation. Insisting that the text of the Bible at this point actually designates these laws as "the ten commandments" is POV, inasmuch as I content that probably every Jewish and Christian scholar for centuries (millenia) have read it as the beginning of a completely new section of laws.

Can anyone prove me wrong with a source? And, again, simply saying, "But the Bible says it is the ten commandments" does not address my point. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This theory apparently originated with J.W. Goethe and has been a darling of the Bible criticism movement. All evidence is circumstantial (but that applies to "scholary" Bible criticism as a whole) and the whole matter is fancy conjencture. I believe I quoted the Goethe source above.
"circumstantial" also applies to claims of "accuracy" for the bible. So please lets avoid the "quotation marks" around scholarly. --User talk:FDuffy 23:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This article has been the darling of Kwamikagami and the departed user FDuffy, the latter of whom was well known for this compositions that were difficult to WP:V. I would not object to a drastic rewrite and/or shortening, but I do also believe that if the man from Weimar came up with this, it is potentially notable. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Its easy to verify my compositions. Just read the relevant Jewish Encyclopedia articles, Finkelstein (e.g. "The Bible Unearthed") and Friedmann (e.g. "who wrote the bible"). --User talk:FDuffy 23:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right, these are not considered the TC in any traditional interpretation I'm aware of. That doesn't mean that the scholars discussing the RD aren't Jewish or Christian, however: Some clearly are. The first crude draught of this article quoted several Jewish and Christian sources (including a gloss in the NRSV) to address just such criticisms, but that didn't make for a very good article. kwami 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
What is unclear is the development of the concept. I would recommend a rewrite of the article with sections about which scholars developed the idea, its potential significance for Jewish and Christian theology, and reactions from the more traditional scholars. JFW | T@lk 22:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That would be nice. It seems from the defence of the traditional view in the mishna that this idea is far older than Goethe — Goethe might just be the one to first propose that the RD is older than the ED (thus its importance to biblical criticism). There are rather elaborate explanations as to how "wrote these words" refers to a passage 20 verses back rather than the passage it is apparently embedded in, but I'm not the one to cover this. kwami 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
There is some discussion of how the "ritual decalogue" began to be proposed in the Jewish Encyclopedia, but it is really tied up in general terms with the development of the documentary hypothesis as a whole. To put it simply, only P has the Ethical decalogue, while E only has the Covenant Code, and J this "ritual decalogue", the fact that they all appear in the same point in the narrative makes them look as if versions of each other, particularly as the ritual decalogue and covenant code are quite similar. In J it basically lists the commands of the ritual decalogue immediately followed by the line "...he wrote these words, the ten commandments", without any other set of commandments being mentioned anywhere in the moses narrative of J, i.e. "the ten commandments" in J must refer to the ritual decalogue.
Of course, opponents of the documentary hypothesis dispute the partitioning into J, E, and P, and so dispute the validity of producing a narrative in which the words "the ten commandments" solely appears with the content of the ritual decalogue, but its existance follows logically if you assume the documentary hypothesis is valid, and a good argument can be made from the narrative that a ritual decalogue exists regardless of the documentary hypothesis, as this is the only point prior to deuteronomy in which "the ten commandments" are named as such. --User talk:FDuffy 23:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I see the article's survived an AFD, and I agree that the concept definitely needs to be covered. It's a very significant charge right now. But it needs NPOV work. It needs to not imply anywhere that the Bible definitely, beyond question actually refers to the "ritual decalogue" as the "ten commandments." This view needs to be reported and properly contextualized. Portions of the article seem to do this well; other portions do not.
Would I be justified in placing an {{pov}} here? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 03:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that should be reserved for when an entire article is slanted. If you feel that it is balanced in parts but not consistantly so, then we can probably work out the rough spots. Otherwise no one's going to know which aspects you're objecting to, and which are okay. kwami 04:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It does help if you point out what it is that you think is pov, otherwise it is difficult for us to do anything to alleviate that impression? --User talk:FDuffy 23:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Exudus 34.28 ref to this text as "The Ten Commandments". Is THE BIBLE a Christian/Jewish enough source for you? BTW, this is the only text called by the bible "the ten comandments", ritual or otherwise. SAK

Couple more point "the idea begain with Goethe in 17xx", isn't that a lot like say Columbus discover America, in 1492, when there were people there when he "discovered" it. In other words, the people that first wrote and read Ex 34.27, dodn't you think they, though of ex 34 as "the ten commandents", afterall, they wrote that they did. SAK

"It needs to not imply anywhere that the Bible definitely, beyond question actually refers to the "ritual decalogue" as the "ten commandments." ", Is this what NPOV requires? What about "cite published relibable sources"? How can you ref to Ex 34.27, which says that the 10C in Ex34 ARE the ten commandments, without stating that they are the ten commandments. Does NPOV require ignoring published, reliable sources? Is everything a matter of POV? SAK..

[edit] Ex 34:28

Eliyah, we are obviosly disagreeing about this. My point is that Ex 34:28 says "these, the 10 commandments" (also translated as "10 statements"), and, because 34:28 comes after 34:27, 26,25 etc (which ARE the RD), that "these", by definition, ref to the RD. I don't think its a matter of POV, I think its a matter of definition. If you want to add a "but some people disagree with this because xxx" or some such thing, that might make sences, if its verifiable. Also, I feel that since you made the change, the onuis is on you to get agreement for the change. I'd be happy to hear what you have to say. Steve kap 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Exodus 34:28 does not say, "these, the 10 commandments." Read it again. It says "He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten statements." In Exodus 34:27 God does, in fact, tell Moses to "write these statements." However, He does not say to write them on the tablets, but just to write them. (Since they are a covenant, this instruction makes good sense.)
When verse 28 says that "he" wrote the ten statements on the tablets, this is referring to God. This is clearly so because in 34:1, God says that He will write them. He also says that they will be the same ten which were on the first set (not new ones which He is about to dictate).
Also, we can assume that when God tells Moses to write His statements, Moses does so immediately. However, it is only after 40 days that the "ten statements" are written on the tablets (34:28).
Outside of Exodus 34, it is not hard to find a source that the 10 commandments on the tablets were the ones spoken to all Israel. They are explicitly identified in Deuteronomy 4:13, 5:18, 9:9. Also, in Deuteronomy 10:4, the second set of commandments are explicitly identified as being those same 10.
In order to even have the possibility of understanding the "ten commandments" of 34:28 as referring to the ritual decalogue, one must ignore a) the 4 verses from Deuteronomy and b) verse 34:1, from the chapter of the RD itself. Therefore it is POV to categorically state that 34:28 is referring to the RD. --Eliyak T·C 07:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, thats not what I call getting agreement before making a change.

As to your points: My mistake, yes, Ex 34:27 is the one that says “write these words”, its Ex 34:28 that calls these words “the ten commandment”.

The normal, grammatically correct I'd say, way of read a text is one sentence referring to the previous one. Your implication that Ex 34:28 ref to text written in Ex 20 and NOT Ex 34:27 is taking things out of context. If we are allowed to rearrange the sentence of a work in any order, we'd have chaos.

As to your “in order to understand...one must ignore” comment, you are assuming an internal consistency in the bible, a consistency which can't really be found. One needs to read no further than Genesis 1 and 2, the two very different creation stories to bear this out.

I 'd go so far as to put in the word “appears”(in the text in question) to allow for those that see it otherwise. But to leave it out completely, well, that's censorship, that's allowing those with a religious POV to play spin doctor, to decide which parts of the bible can be referred to and which cannot. I won't go that far. Steve kap 16:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with adding the word "appears." Some other points I'd like to make, however:
  • Ignoring Deuteronomy, while not a problem according to Documentary Theory, goes against the complete Bible as it presents itself to the reader (as does ignoring Exodus 34:1). While the Bible contains some contradictions, in this case we have a clear statement (Deuteronomy 10:4) vs. an ambiguity.
  • Biblical criticism is not the last word on the Bible. It must also be described as it is understood by the religions to which it is integral. To make categorical assertions which are against the opinion of those religions, even if they are not backed up by the text, is POV. When the text itself is ambiguous, all the more so.
  • In this case, not only does the assertion require that one take the opinion of Documentary Theory that Deuteronomy is a separate text, but also that Exodus 34:1 (ostensibly J) is separate from Exodus 34:28 (also apparently J). The idea that the "ten commandments" of 34:28 are the RD is interesting, but is by no means the clear meaning of the text, even according to Documentary Theory.
I hope you can see that a factual assertion here would be POV. --Eliyak T·C 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I used "seems" instead of "appear," because that word is also in the previous clause. --Eliyak T·C 00:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the changes you made, thanks for reasoning with me. I'd like to respond to some of your points, just for the sake of discussion:

I disagree with your assurtion that religous text can only be interpreted by "the religons to which it is integral". Think of it, what other field is there that disallows examination from the outside? I think, at the least, historians should have a go at such text, also linguists, mathmatitions, social scientist etc. By leaving off such viewpoint, you create a bubble, and inside that bubble anything can pass for the truth. The emperor has new clothes effect. You might, being a memeber of a religon, very well have an interpretation, and you might content that it is "correct" according to your religous tradition. But thats just one POV. There is a historical interpretation, a lignuistic interpretation, etc.

As to Deuteronomy, my understanding is that its of dubious origin. It was "found" in a section of the temple that was being renovated. And it contained language that was favorable to those that "found" it. And that it was written in the style of the era that it was "found", not of the era from which it was preported to be.

Many see condratictions in the bible as a shadow of former conflicts, dissagrements, compromises (much like wiki, I think). While this may or may not be true, I don't think its helpful to gloss over the condradictions, to take the explainations of the faithful as historical fact. If we want to really know that nature of our "sacred" text, we should examin them head on. Steve kap 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps you've misunderstood me on one point, and we are not so much in disagreement. Religious texts need not be discussed only according to the religions which pertain to it, but to assert the Point Of View that those religions are incorrect (especially when they have a 2,000-year history of textual analysis!) is plainly wrong. It would also be wrong for a Wikipedia article to present religious doctrine as unquestionable fact. --Eliyak T·C

10:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and it sounds reasonable, but it can leed to problems. Consider, from Genesis:

"...the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children.."

Now there are religous people that I've talk to that say that this line doesn't say that god had sons (or, not more than one, anyway), and that the sons of god didn't cross breed with humans. Even after reading this line, they make that claim, and some even (remarkably) that this line DOESN'T say.. well.. what it unambigously does.

So, using your rule, how would we ref to this passage in wiki? Would it be "it appears to some reader that sons of god...". Just because there are those that are willing to do some mental and logical gymnastics, does that me that we have to use weasel word, even to only report what the text says?Steve kap 14:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It also says, in Exodus 21:6, "Then his master shall bring him unto the judges." (KJV) Here the same word is used - Elohim, but there is relative consensus that this means "the powers that be," (i.e judges) not "God." I would say something like, "The word Elohim has been interpreted in different ways. Some believe this indicates that God in fact had sons, while others see "Elohim" as referring to the noble class."
By the way, it seems that Genesis 6:2 would be J, not E. --Eliyak T·C 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

??? I didn't claim that Gensis 6:2 was J or E. Sorry, I'm totally missing your point Steve kap 23:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My point is just that it would be uncharacteristic for "Elohim" to be used in a J text, which is a minor point in favor of saying that it does not mean "God." --Eliyak T·C 04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Work

Some good work as been done on the Academic Interpratation section. I think that in general, this article has become quite scholarly, getting into the history of the subject, giving acamenic interpretations of many types.

Compare with the article on "The Ten Commandments", which focuses mostly on, say, the religous tradition of the origin, with very little actual history.

And to think, THIS article was listed for deletion, for reason anyone can resmise for themselves. What a loss that would have been. Steve kap 14:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it's gotten to where it is, and appears stable. When I created it (in what I admit was a not very encyclopedic article), you could hardly find anything about the RD on the net, and I was afraid I would face a constant battle to delete or bowdlerize it. kwami 16:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Just a thought

Doesn't it ever occur to anyone that an all-knowing, all-powerful God would have been able to make this all so clear that we wouldn't have any controversy at all? Just askin'.Kjdamrau 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)kjdamrau

[edit] Why Considered Minor

As to: "As they concern points of ritual, rather than ethics, they are in general viewed as having minor significance compared to the Ethical Decalogue." I'm not sure that this can be verified. I personally think that the RD is seen as minor compared to the ED because the RD is just so silly, and embarassing for the religous. Now, I can't verify that. But maybe there is some school of thought that does tell us why one if preffered over the other. Lacking this, lacking a verfiable explination, I suggest we give NO explanation, and simply state that the RD is generally considered of minor importance. Steve kap (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The reason appears to be that the Jews moved on to other conceptions of God's commandments, but that early versions remained in the scripture and were mostly ignored. But that gets into Biblical criticism, which people get really touchy about. kwami (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. kwami (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)