GakuseiDon

I have no problem with the JEPD hypothesis. The question is, do the scholars believe that the Bible has God or even Moses writing the commands in Ex 34 on the second set of stone tablets?

spin

Well, I do. It's far too simplistic in its JEPD formulation. :banghead:

But yes, I guess the accretions to the text, which Doctor X puts as "JEPD authors", are what are causing some of the difficulties for our more literalist readers.


spin

Kosh

In any event, it is apparent that Doctor X is letting wine tasting and football (ie, "A life") get in the way of his committments here.

Or perhaps it's just that I've returned from the neighborhood Xmas party a little tipsy on Yellow Tail (yes, that's Australiian GD!) Merlot.

Doctor X

Well, it required a sacrifice of a small child--Staff did not post that warning against Girl Scouts sellers for no reason--upon the battlements, but the Patriots prevailed which allows me to cracketh my Friedman to address those Pesky Roughly 10 Commandments.

Regarding spin's objection, he will have to come up with an alternative to the formation of the OT that works better than the Documentary Hypothesis. A bit like evolution, it seems that most of scholarship agrees with the theory but argues over the details. Friedman eschews breaking up the individual authors into numerous layers--J1, J2, J3, for example.

First, a brief summary of who the writers were according to Friedman's summary of the Documentary Hypothesis.

J: is the "Jahwist" author, known for his use of YHWH for the name of the deity. He never uses Elohim, though individuals in the J stories may. He comes from Judah. Friedman demonstrates the connection between J and Judah which I will not summarize for space. Hey, if you have not read the book yet, consider it a Christmas, Hanukah, or Annual Celebration of the Eternal Cycle of Life, Death, and Rebirth project.

E: is the "Eloist" author, known for his use of Elohim for the name of the deity. As noted on another thread, this is actually plural, and while the traditions may preserve a fully polytheistic conceptions, by context, the name refers to at least a deity more important than the others. Just to cause confusion, E will switch to YHWH after he appears to Moses and identifies himself as such. Friedman identifies him as a Shiloh Levite priest, possibly descended from the Mosaic line, named Bob [Stop that.--Ed.]. Right, again, he devotes about a chapter to the evidence for this.

D: is the Deutronomistic author, who, according to Friedman, writes a lot of the OT--Deuteronomy-Joshua-Judges-1 & 2 Samuel-1 & 2 Kings. He has similar attitudes as E--hates Aaronid priesthood: "In his introduction and conclusion to the book of Deuteronomy, he mentioned Aaron only twice: once to say that he died, and once to say that God was mad enough to destroy him in the matter of the golden calf." Long . . . long . . . long story short, Friedman identifies him as Jeremiah or Jeremiah's scribe Baruch.

D generally uses JE, but does quote P to reverse P. For example, the book of Jeremiah contains quotes from P. It ". . . reverses the language of the P creation story, denies that God emphasized matters of sacrifices in the day that Israel left Egypt. Jeremiah knew the Priestly laws and stories. He did not like them, but he knew them."

P: is the "Priestly" author. He uses JE and follows the stories. Indeed, he uses Elohim like E, though, according to Friedman, his style is so identifiable, he was easy to separate from E. Also, the "Elohim" stories have "doublets"--repeated material--which suggests two authors. Friedman identifies him as an Aaronid priest, or one serving their interests. P promotes Aaron and diminishes Moses:

Again, Friedman goes into detail. Here is a fun one for you Creation Fans:

Now, let us define who wrote what:

E Writer: Ex 15:25b-26

okay . . . not much there. According to Friedman, the long E section of rules, Ex 21:1-27; 22:1-30; 23:1-33, is considered based on an earlier "Covenant Code" source. As noted below, E will have Moses do the "smash the tables" thing when Moses finds out about Aaron and his Golden Calf:

J Writer: Ex 34:14-28

The YHWHistic Decalogue is actually part of a section of commandments. YHWH starts giving commandments right at the beginning of the chapter. Ex 34:1b has the Redactor explaining the problem that the J story does not have Moses smash the tablets.

Friedman suggests that the E writer wished to raise doubts about Judah's central religious shrine--it could not have had the original tablets:

Nothing sets the "10 Commandments" apart in the J text. The J text that is similar to the Decalogue of the other writers is:

and is considerably longer than ten! Good thing Former-Chief Justice Moore did not choose this version. Fans wilt note that this version contains the J version of my favorite commandment--child sacrifice! In this version, J allows "redeeming" the first-born whereas in the E commandment--considered part of the "Covenant Code"--no such redemption is allowed [Ex 22:29b--Ed.].

Where are our favorite commandments? No sabbath rule, no "thou shalt nots"--kill/murder, covet, bear false witness--though be careful about boiling kids in their mother's milk.

P Writer: Ex 20:11-17

Similarly, these are not called the "10 Commandments," and the commandments are rather longer than ten. P, a big Aaron fan since the writer is considered part of the Aaronid priesthood, adds Aaron to the story.

again, quite a bit of writing with little correspondence to the J version. Apparently, YHWH dictates different versions. I "corrected" the RSV version to Friedman's translation, because he notes that P quotes his own creation story. D, as seen below, prefers to cite the D reason for keeping commandments--he got you out of slavery. Friedman notes that a Dead Sea Scroll text combines both reasons [All Souls Deuteronomy Scroll--Ed.].

D Writer: Deut 5:6-17

Again, no mention of this "ten commandments." Notice the different reasons for keeping the sabbath in the D and P versions. We can see D quoting P material while dropping the P creation reference.

The reason for the differences, then, are different authors with different agendas.

--J.D.

Reference:

Friedman RE. Who Wrote the Bible?. 2nd Ed. SanFrancisco: Harper Collins, 1997

URL edited by Toto to remove pasky linefeed

GakuseiDon

Thanks Doctor X, that was very interesting, and I appreciate the time you put into that.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really answer anything AFAICS!

I'm not an inerrantist, and accept the JEDP hypothesis, with later writers adding to and editting earlier material.

As Doctor X says, Ex 34 is actually part of a section of commandments, and is sometimes called a Ritual Decalogue(or "YHWHistic Decalogue"). But even supposing they were on original set of stones, it doesn't matter!

Someone has gone through and cleaned up that section - probably the D author, given that Deut is later and explains what happens with the stone tablets. The Deut author is unambiguous about what is on the second set of stone tablets. I suggest that Ex 34 is as well, and have given references to back that up, which no-one has refuted.

Doc, the question is: in the final form of the Bible, what was on the second set of stone tablets? Does Friedman say anything about this?

Doctor X

Toto:

Censorship!! CENSORSHIP!!! Dost thou dare to remove my sacred line-feed?!! [Ignore him, he has no idea what a "line-feed" is.--Ed.]

GK:

Hmmmm. . . .

Let me see if I understand your question. First, there is no evidence, of course, that any tablets/tables ever existed. Friedman seems to assume a historical figure--a Moses and Aaron--that may have "started" the priesthoods under their name, but he does not expand on it. This may be for him the same as a historical Junior--what we have may have nothing to do with the "real figure."

Why is that important? Because, given current archaeology, no Exodus happened. Friedman does refer to this a bit--he mentions that, perhaps, a small group of Levites were in Egypt . . . sorry book not in front of me. I think from his perspective it does not matter since the writers believed the history happened or were not, frankly, interested in writing a history as we understand it--"what actually happened."

So, going back to the authors . . . I have no idea "how" the tradition of the tablets started. The E writer has Moses break them and Friedman makes a good argument that it is a slap at a tradition in Jerusalem. J does not have this story.

P and D? Well, D uses P and does not like him. P uses J and E so he plays with the tablets. Whatever "actually happened" it appears a P would accept some tablets existed and even accept that "new ones" were made.

Another writer I did not mention much about is R the Redactor. Friedman suggests it is actually P--if I read him correctly. Keeping both E and J as a base, he "fixes" the problem in J by refering to the "original" tablets.

Okay . . . about your question . . . "what" was understood to be on the tablets.

I would not be surprised if no one knew. Let me be frank, if only a tradition exists what the hell is in the Ark--if it ever existed?! We do not have a "and this is what was on the tablets which were put in the Ark" story.

Part of my point was that the "Decalogue" is an artificial concept. Would any of the above "fit" on a tablet . . . or two? In fact, go back to D--why would Moses have to gather everyone to retell them the "commandments" when they are on the bloody tablets?

I am not sure what your point is with that. J gives a crap-load of commandments which, we can suppose, or on the tablets--if they would fit. While one can argue the P uses some of them--and D uses P--they have no correspondence whatsoever. P & D's are different from J and even E. As I noted above, this would argue that YHWH cannot remember what he dictates/writes! How capricious!

Frankly, all of them look like collections of traditions and rules that the individual writers put together for a political and theological purpose. Here is a great example--again Child Sacrifice!! Did J know E? Well, even if E's rules are a separate source, it is "softened" in J--you can redeem your brat. As Levenson explains, this does become a tradition--so does J change E or does J change the "separate source" to reflect current tradition? As for E, if you believe Friedman's dating, child sacrifice probably passed out of any tradition--certainly there is no evidence that it occurred at that time--though it did in other cities. So why did E keep it?

Anyways, none of them are very specific as to "what" is on the tablets unless you believe P can fit all of that stuff on a tablet! Maybe . . . but given the date and the tradition the writers all, at best, preserve traditions rather than rules.

But . . . if you also believe Friedman's explanation of Deuteronomy as the book just happened to be found by Josiah (?) then you have people reading out the who damn thing and tearing their hair out. Or you have Ezra getting everyone together to read the texts after the exile--can you imagine everyone standing around listening to the "begats?"

My point [ZZZZzzZZZZzzzZZZZzzZZ--Ed.] with that is I think it is an artificial conception rather than a reflection of reality--what was on the tablets. I will also note that J comes from Judah and, presummably, would "know" what was "on the tablets" if such a specific tradition survived. Well, E cannot squish a tradition of Aaron and he can break the tablets . . . could he ignore a well-known tradition of "what was on the tablets?"

Thus, [ZZZzzZZZZzzZZZzzZZZ--Ed.] I think the writers made up what they wanted. Did they preserve traditions their "groups" wanted? Probably.

Do not know if that responds to your question, but as they say, if you cannot impress them with facts, dazzle them with bullshit.

--J.D.

GakuseiDon

No, no, it is all very interesting. But it doesn't really answer my question, I'm afraid.

Some contradictionists say that the Bible has two sets of 10 Commandments, and that the Bible says that what was on the first tablets was different to what was on the second set of tablets.

Now, granted that the historical development of the Bible postulates that several authors with differing ideas of what were on the tablets added to and revised each other's work. Not a problem.

The question I am asking is: In the final form of the Pentatauch that came about (circa 5th C BCE?), does the Bible contradict itself about what is on the 2nd set of stone tablets?

My answer is "No". In the final form, what was on the 2nd set of stone tablets was on the 1st. I think I've presented a pretty strong case for this.

mike_decock

[Mode Mode]

I've split the discussion regarding the Documentary Hypothesis and DSS here.

-Mike...

GakuseiDon

Thanks Mike! Hopefully Kosh and I can get back to the original point: What is on the second set of stone tablets?

To recap:

(1) It is sometimes claimed that the only place the "10 Commandments" are called that is in Ex 34, but it isn't. It is also called that in Deut 10:4.

(2) The Bible clearly states that the writing on the second set is the same as on the first set.
Deut 10:4 "And He wrote on the tablets according to the first writing, the Ten Commandments."

Please reread (2)! It is either proof of my point, or a contradiction with Ex 34. Please keep that in mind.

(3) The 10 Commandments are special, in that they were the ones that God spoke in front of the Israelites. This is noted several times in the Bible. Deut 9:10, Deut 10:4. They referr to when God spoke in front of the assembled Israelites, from Ex 19 and Ex 20. (The Israelites run away when God starts! Ex 20:18).

(4) Even before Moses gets the first set of stone tablets, we see him writing down God's commandments in the Book of the Covenant. Ex 24:4. This includes many of the commandments in Ex 34 (e.g. Ex 23:10-19)

(5) Moses then consecrates the covenant and says, "Behold, the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words". Ex 24:8.

Again, remember the phrase "according to all these words". Note that there were considerably more than 10.

(6) The Israelites build an idol, a golden calf, and Moses breaks the first set of stone tablets. Though not stated, I suggest that this represents a breaking of the covenant (it actually breaks one of the rules on the tablets!), which now needs to be restored.

(7) In Ex 34:1, God promises that He would rewrite on the second set the commands He wrote on the first set.

(8) God then asks Moses to write something(!) Ex 34:27. "Write down these words, for according to the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Note the parallel with (5) above.

(9) Ex 34:28 says "and He wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, The Ten Commandments". From the context of (2) and (7) above, this is God rewriting the words from Ex 20.

(10) Moses then writes Ex 34:10-26 in the Book of the Covenant or equivalent. This represents a renewal of the covenant.

Could God be asking *Moses* to write on the stone tablets? It's possible, but context and precedence is against it.

For the first set of stone tablets, we see God writing on the stones, and Moses writing down "all these words" (all the other commands) in the Book of the Covenant.

For the second set, we see God promising to write on the tablets again (and Deut stating clearly that God did exactly that!), and then asking Moses to write commandments down.

I think the case is strong (actually overwhelming!) that there is no "second set of Ten Commandments". Points (1) to (9) can be checked easily. I can't prove (10), but I think it follows on naturally from the other nine points.

I'll be interested in any comments/criticisms. But, please, I would ask you to actually address my points! So far Kosh is the only one to do that (though Doc X's stuff was interesting).

gregor

I know I'm not Kosh and not worthy and all, I don't understand how you can write:

"I think I've presented a pretty strong case for this [that there is no conflicting list of ten commandments]."

I can't see your case at all. I see no case.

I don't understand how God's motives or need to "re-establish a covenant" are relevant to the existence of a conflict.

I don't understand about whether God or Moses writes it makes it not a contradiction.

I don't understand why the fact that there are 600 additional commandments does not mean there is not a conflict in our "top ten."

I thought this thread was to address "Is there a contradiction between the OT lists?"

Because I'm a linear thinker, let me set forth my query.

Premise 1: Modern Xianity asserts that a list of ten commandments exists.

Premise 2: This list of ten commandments comes from Ex. 20:3-17.

Premise 3: There is another list in Ex. 34:17-26 that contains some similar but some different commandments.

Your conclusion: No conflicting list. To support your conclusion that there is no conflict you have three choices.

First, there is a conflict only because modern Xianity is wrong, in that the Ex. 20 list is not THE list. All things listed in Ex. 34 can be found elsewhere amongst the 600. (If this is your conclusion, please find a prohibition on goat boiling somewhere other than Ex. 34).

Second, there is no conflict 'cause Moses got one list wrong. (If this is your conclusion, please let us know which list is wrong).

Third, there is no conflict because Ex. 34 is not THE list if ten commandments. (If this is your conclusion, please explain the plain text of Ex. 34).


Now, without (i) a reference to God's motives, (ii) a discussion of the actual scribe (unless you've accepted option two), or (iii) a "re-read my posts" explanation, please explain how there is no conflict.