Tellurian

The second of the ten commandments condemns graven images and states that no graven images should be made, but the passages describing the construction of the alleged ark of the covenant describes how two graven images were placed on top of the ark, which was supposed to contain the ten commandments tablets stating there should be no graven images.

This seems to be an indication that the generally accepted ten commandments were not the original ten commandments, but instead were a second set used to replace the original ten commandments. There are commandments in Exodus 34 that are called the ten commandments but are different than the generally accepted ten commandments. Perhaps the commandments in Exodus 34 were the original ten commandments that were replaced later with commandments forbidding graven images, not realizing that the alleged ark was supposedly built with graven images on top of the ark.

Toto

The ten commandments (or utterances) are not historical, and I doubt that you can recreate an actual historical chronology, especially since the Exodus never happened, the Conquest never happened, Moses is mythological, etc. It is quite possible that all forms of the ten commandments post-date the story of the arc of the covenant, or they could all be mythological.

Christians, and especially Protestants, have made much more of this commandment than Jews have. Jewish sources seem to treat the arc as a special case.

This evangelical apologetic answer claims that this bible difficulty is taken out of context by atheists and Catholics alike.

stephan huller

This is what is so frustrating about the understanding of Judaism. When people hear about the Samaritans for instance it is said that they only stick to the Law of Moses. I can't tell you the number of real 'scholars' who believe that because of this they are surprised to hear that the Samaritans have halakhot.

Seriously.

What the fuck is the matter with people?

The Torah says X but it doesn't get into the detail about how X is applied or should be interpreted. Are people aware for instances that the familiar 'Jewish months' aren't even referenced in the text (the Samaritans call them typically 'first month,' 'second month' etc).

So now we come to Torah's pronouncement about images. How is it to be applied? The short answer is that it was not uniformly agreed upon in antiquity. Agrippa is said to have had a palace in Tiberius which was adorned with image on its walls. We see synagogues with mosaics on the floor etc.

The fact that one faction of Jews - the Pharisees - might have had a problem with this doesn't mean that Agrippa couldn't find support for his position. We shouldn't even suppose that the Pharisees had the original position (as it would be impossible to imagine that the cherubim were added to the sanctuary) They were apparently there at least since the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Like any religion the Jews have things written down and then they have traditions of exegesis. Nothing's in black and white (other than the idea that every correct way of interpreting has already been established so no innovation is tolerated).

And on the idea that old names can't be attributed to new teachings look at the nonsense in the Zohar attributed to Rabbi so and so ...

This why the evangelical interpretation of 'Judaism' is so irritating. If these people knew how the Jewish religion really works they'd give up being evangelicals

Lugubert

Some Christians disagree with you. There's nothing on images, graven or otherwise, in Dr. Luther's enumeration of the ten in his Catechisms. He gives
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain.
3. Thou shalt sanctify the holy day. [Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.]
etc.