Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 7

I was disturbed to notice that after a short absence someone added, next to the Ex 20 and Deut 5 versions of the Ten Commandments, the group of sentences referred to by academics as the "ritual decalogue". Traditionalists do not attach any particular importance to these laws from Exodus 34. I have argued in the past that they should be treated as they are - something that has interested academics starting with J.W. Goethe but really cannot be accorded the status that would be given to them by listing them side-by-side with the Ten Commandments.

I was wondering if others could offer their views. It would be good to have something of a consensus here. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Ten Commandments, not the modern concept of a "Ritual Decalogue". There is no value in including them in this table. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since people generally do not mean the RD when they speak of the TC's, I agree that the details belong in a separate article. However, there are three list called the "Ten Commandments", and since this article is titled "Ten Commandments", we should of course include at least a summary of all three. A comparison is warranted, to show how the RD is an outlier.

If you wish to exclude some of the TC's from the article, then it should be renamed "traditionalist account of the TC's". Otherwise we should include all significant points of view.

And please don't edit war until there is some new consensus. We've had consensus to include the RD in the table for the past year and a half. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But there aren't "three list called the "Ten Commandments"", there are only two. There is also something that some academics have posited, a "Ritual Decalogue", but they aren't what is known as the "Ten Commandments". The most recent discussion on whether or not it belonged here, Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 6#An Alternative Version, noted that it only deserved a brief mention and a link, nothing more. If you want to compare the "Ritual Decalogue" to the Ten Commandments, feel free to do so in the Ritual Decalogue article. And you really need to take your own advice here; there has never been a consensus for this insertion, so please don't try to edit-war it in. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The biblical text itself calls it the TC's. That obviously counts. As for consensus, it's been stable for 18 mos with the RC in the table. That counts as consensus--unless you're suggesting that no-one's read the article for a year and a half?

This is how it works: You make a change to a stable article. The change is reverted. You take it to talk. You don't insist on the change by making it again; that is the definition of edit warring. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not the biblical text calls it the Ten Commandments is actually a big question, isn't it? In any event, we don't rely on editors' interpretations of ancient religious texts, but rather on what reliable sources say, or on common usage. The "Ten Commandments" has for the last two millenia at least, not referred to the "Ritual Decalogue". As I've shown, there was never a consensus for this emphasis on a different topic here in previous discussions. Two editors at least disagree with the material; simply reverting it back in and saying "you're edit-warring" isn't really helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus has been for inclusion for the past year and a half. Just because you two have now decided that you want the consensus to change doesn't mean that it has. You need to leave the article alone until a new consensus emerges. That's how things work around here. Discuss controversial changes first, then edit, don't edit and then insist on keeping your version while the discussion proceeds. Really, you've been here long enough you should know that.

The the annotated New Revised Standard Version acknowledges the RD. Although perhaps not common knowledge, it's hardly some fringe idea or OR on my part. I agree that it should be a separate article, as it isn't the common conception, but IMO all RS points of view need to be at least summarized in the main article. For the past year and a half, everyone else has agreed. Anyway, that's what discussion is needed for, changing the article, not for reverting whichever changes you want to make to the article. — kwami (talk) 07:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody, but nobody, calls the Ritual Decalogue "The Ten Commandments", and this is the subject of this article. There already is a separate article on the Ritual Decalogue. All that is needed in this article is a separate section (with "main article: Ritual Decalogue") drawing attention to the RD, saying that some scholars believe this preceded the Ten Commandments we have and was the model for them, and pointing out that, unlike the Ten Commandments we have, it really does consist of ten commandments.

This is not caving in to traditionalism, but only to the normal use of language. For example, it is arguably true that the terms "Scotland" and "Scotia" originally applied to what we now call Ireland, and was only applied to North Britain by extension. That does not mean that an article about Scotland should give a detailed description of Ireland: there is already a separate article on Ireland. Encyclopedia articles should be about things, not words. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't call it "the" TC's, but it's "a" TC. Also, we use "Decalogue" as a synonym here, right in the 1st line of the intro, and the RD is definitely called a Decalogue.

As far as "nobody, but nobody" calling it the TC's, let's see, here are three examples, two from this decade:

"Terse Lists of Prohibitions: The Ten Commandments

"There are two lists of pithy prohibitions in Exod. 20:1-17 (paralleled in Deut. 5:6-21) and in Exod. 34:11-26 that occupy pivotal points in the theophany and covenant texts. The lists of Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 5 are called "ten commandments" in the biblical text (cf. Exod 34:27 and Deut. 4:13; 10:4), and that title, or the equivalent Latin term Decalogue, has traditionally been applied to the list of Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5. Biblical scholars often distinguish the Exodus 20/Deuteronomy 5 list from the Exodus 34 list on the basis of content by referring to the former as the Ethical Decalogue and the latter as the Ritual Decalogue." (The Hebrew Bible: A Brief Socio-Literary Introduction. Norman Gottwald, 2008:118)

"The Ten Commandments occur in three versions. Two are almost identical with each other [...], but the third, which apparently replaced the tablets that were broken, is quite different" (Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. T. Desmond Alexander, David Weston Baker, 2003:501)

"The Pentateuch also states that Moses committed to writing certain laws and records : 'all the words of J",' Ex 24³ (E)—what these 'words' were is not stated ; the ritual Ten Commandments, Ex 34²⁸ (J) ; the register of the Stations in the Wilderness, ..." (A Dictionary of the Bible: Kir-Pleiades. Hastings, Selbie, Davidson, Driver, & Swete, eds., 1900:446)

— kwami (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, could I strongly suggest that you stop readding the same content until some semblance of consensus emerges here. You are the only long-term editor (Steve kap seems to have gone) who consistently argues that we should discuss the RD in the context of the Ten Commandments. You are suggesting a level of equivalence that is just not there, neither in academic sources nor in traditional literature. JFW | T@lk 10:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

JFD, could I strongly suggest that you stop redeleting the same content until some semblance of consensus emerges here.

In your edit summary, you said, "please read WP:BRD". However, it would appear that you yourself haven't read it. Let's take it step by step:

1. Previous consensus (include text of RD in table for comparison, but leave analysis for separate article, a consensus that has stood for a year and a half without objection: quote, "The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is" — the RD was both highly visible, and stood for a very long time)
2. Make an edit / bold change (you deleted the RD from the table)
3. Edit reverted (by me)
4. You disagree with revert
5. Take it to the talk page (where we are now)

Note that the page you asked me to read clearly states,

"Do not edit war. The BRD cycle does not contain another "R" after the "D".

That is where you're going wrong: you are reverting the reversion, which is what the BRD guideline is meant to prevent. You are the one violating BRD, not me. — kwami (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, regardless of whether or not there was consensus for the material at one point (on which we disagree), there is clearly no consensus for this material in the article now. As has been explained to you, this article is about what are traditionally, academically and commonly known as the Ten Commandments. There is a different article for material on what is known as the Ritual Decalogue. Three editors have told you this so far. What else will it take? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, lots of people can tell other people things. If I tell you rather than you tell me, does that make me right instead of you?

The RD is academically called the TCs/Decalogue, as I just provided 3 sources for, so you're wrong there. But if the article is to only cover the traditional concept of the TCs/Decalogue, then it should be called either "traditional concept of the Ten Commandments", "Ethical Decalogue", or some other disambiguating phrasing. IMO, if it's to be just about the Ten Commandments/Decalogue, then it should cover everything that those terms cover, at least in the biblical sense. I have no problem with splitting off the RD as a sub-article, because, as you've said, it's not part of the common understanding. But the main article should still cover all of the TCs/Decalogue, all three versions, even if it spends most of its space on the ED and refers the reader elsewhere for details the RD. A comparison of the three texts should of course be in the article that covers all three texts, not in the one specific to one text. Come on, a table comparing the Romance languages should be at Romance languages, the general article, not at an article on just one of those languages, say at French language. — kwami (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As I have argued for a very long time, popular understanding of the term "Ten Commandments" is of Ex 20 and Deut 5. The article already makes extensive reference for this academic oddity for which there is very little empirical support. I'm a little annoyed that the article has now acquired the {{Bias}} tag, because there is no bias. There is a lack of consensus on the inclusion of a list, which is not the same as bias. My suspicion is that the tag will remain there for evermore because one particular editor by the name of Kwamikagami will never be prepared to accept that overemphasis on the RD would constitute bias, rather that vice versa. JFW | T@lk 11:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"popular understanding of the term "Ten Commandments" is of Ex 20 and Deut 5". Yes, I've said that myself just above. That's why I don't object to splitting off the oddball decalogue.

"for which there is very little empirical support". Um, how is there any empirical support for the other two? There's nothing empirical about the Bible.

There are three sets of commandments, as I've ref'd above. The main article needs to cover the entire subject, not just those parts which are popular. Although we can split off a sub-article for one, IMO a comparison of all three belongs in the article which covers all three. — kwami (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

But kwami, the Pentateuch is filled with commandments - there aren't just three sets, there are many sets of them. However, there are only two that are known as the "Ten Commandments", the topic of this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, there are 600-odd commandments, but there are three sets of TCs, as I ref'd above. True, only two are called the TCs in the Pentateuch, but then they aren't the two in this article! The two ID'd as the TCs in the text are the RD and the Deut. ED. There are also two lists of TCs in popular conception, but different ones, the Ex. ED and the Deut. ED. That works out to be three total. When the Bible itself id's the RD as the TCs, and mainstream translations like the NRSV make note of that, it's OR to say it isn't. Again, I don't mind the RD being a separate article, but when we have a table that claims to compare the different versions of the TCs, it should at least list the different versions of the TCs. — kwami (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To begin with, it would be helpful if you stopped asserting that there were three sets of "Ten Commandments", when we all know there are only two sets of lists referred to in traditional, academic, and common terminology as the "Ten Comandments". Also, it would be helpful if you would stop asserting that "only two are called the TCs in the Pentateuch", referring to the Ten Commandments and the "Ritual Decalogue", since you're asserting a modern hypothesis as ancient fact. It will be impossible for discussion to make progress unless we are all more honest on these points. In addition, if you want to open up the field to all the various "decalogues" that have been theorized out there, then why do you restrict it to just the Ten Commandments and the "Ritual Decalogue"? Harrelson, for example, lists several others, including Leviticus 18:6-18, Leviticus 20:2-16, Ezekiel 18:5-9, and Psalm 15:2-5. Shouldn't we be including in the table those four other decalogues? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And it would be helpful if you stopped asserting that there were only two sets of TCs, when we all know that there are three. Don't accuse me of being dishonest: The facts are blindingly obvious, and I have the sources to back them up. Sure, traditionally only two are accepted as the TCs, which is why I don't mind splitting off the third. But your insistence that therefore the third is irrelevant to the article is IMO silliness. Perhaps you're right and I'm wrong, but unless you come up with a reason to accept what you say, rather than simply demanding we accept you as an authority, you can talk till you're blue in the face.

As for why I assert three sets, it's because the refs I have state there are three; the reason they count three is that in the Pentateuch two are called the TCs (esp. the RD), and a third is a close paraphrase of one of those two and commonly accepted as the TCs. Personally, I'd say there are only two lists, the RD and the ED of Deut. 5, and would just note that the ED is closely paraphrased in Exod., but that would be OR, as I know of no RS which covers them that way. So, IMO there are two lists, but the refs list three, and that third one is commonly accepted, and that's good enough for me. Though, if you wish to add Harrelson's opinion, knock yourself out. — kwami (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with you talking about more than one "decalogue", but claiming that there is more than one "Ten Commandments" is just not in synch with reality. "Decalogue" is a term used by academics, and sometimes they mean "Ritual decalogue". "Ten Commandments" is really just used to mean what academics sometimes call the "ethical decalogue". As for the rest, these minority views are all interesting, and perhaps deserve their own table, but really in the article that discusses minority views. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Decalogue" and "Ten Commandments" are synonyms. Ex. 34 is both the Ritual/Cultic Decalogue and the ritual/cultic Ten Commandments. Saying that it doesn't belong here because it's not the TCs but the Decalogue is bizarre. This article, anyway, is about the Ten Commandments / Decalogue. If it isn't, please provide RSs that the terms are not synonymous, and we'll remove the term "Decalogue" from the article. — kwami (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

They're theoretically synonyms, particularly in academic writing, but they're not so in common use. There's really one "Ten Commandments", and several theoretical/academic exercise decalogues. Anyway, there are now four editors who think the material doesn't belong here, and only you who think it does. Why are you still attempting to edit-war it in, when the current consensus is very clear? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus for the last 18 months was to include the RD. Why are you trying to edit war it out instead of coming to a new consensus? There is no current consensus; per WP:BRD, the old stable version remains until we work this out. You've been here long enough to know how dispute resolution works.

Please show me how 'Decalogue' and 'Ten Commandments' are not synonyms, even in common usage:

Webster's 10th Collegiate: Decalogue: ten commandemnts

OED, 3rd ed: Decalogue: The Ten Commandments collectively as a body of law. They beleeve the Decalog of Moses. The Second Table of the Decalogue or Ten Commandments. Both the tables of the decalogue are broken. The great geologic register, graven, like the decalogue of old, on tables of stone.

Nothing there about them not really being the TCs; no distinction of academic vs. common usage, except of course that 'Decalogue' is a more learned term, so one might expect it to be more common in academia. And of course the refs above:

"The Ten Commandments occur in three versions." (Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. T. Desmond Alexander, David Weston Baker, 2003:501)

I could dig up more, if evidence has any value here. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jayjg. The RD should be mentioned in this article, and the hypothesis discussed. A detailed comparison between what is normally called the Ten Commandments and the RD should probably not be in this article. It just isn't that relevant. Comparing the two this way is especially not a good idea because doing it this way borders on OR if one is going to get anything useful out of it. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it OR? — kwami (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The comparison would be OR if the comparison was not done by a reliable source. PS stop reverting to your version until you have persuaded everyone why your version is better. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

A list of three versions which are sourced is not OR when it's the reader doing the comparison!

Please stop reverting to your version, which started this edit war, until you have persuaded everyone why your version is better. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I withdraw the OR argument. Other arguments given above by Jayjg and others are still enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, four editors here think that this interesting academic theory deserves to be discussed in its own article, and at least mentioned here, but none think it is reasonable to include it in a comparison table of "Ten Commandments". I think it would make more sense to have all these varying modern theories of alternate decalogues (of which there are far more than 3, as explained) belong in another article, likely the Ritual Decalogue article. You seem to be the only editor disagreeing. How about you concede that there is no consensus for this third item in the table, and in return I'll create a nicely formatted table for the other article? That sounds fair to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no other lists called the TCs in the Bible itself, so I don't see a valid comparison.

I think that would be acceptable, pending input from other editors, if we make clear in this article that we are not comparing the two lists called the TCs by the Bible, which are Ex34 and arguably Deut5, but rather the TCs in popular conception. I still do find odd this insistence on excluding the only list clearly called the TCs from an article on the TCs, just because that's what everyone already knows. If we only cover what people already know, why should they come here at all? — kwami (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, make that five editors here. The so-called "Ritual Decalogue" is not called the Ten Commandments in the Bible. There is a theory, held to by some modern scholars (not all), that the covenant referred to in Exodus 34:27-28 refers to the text of Exodus 34:10-26. We all get that. But that doesn't make it a fact. Kwami keeps stating it as if it were a fact, and giving it undue weight. It's mentioned in the article, and that's fine. (Although I don't think it belongs in the lede, either, and I'd like to deal with that once the block is lifted.) - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. This pretense that "the only list clearly called the TCs" is the "Ritual Decalogue" is extremely unhelpful, and, frankly, not particularly honest. A modern textual theory, held by some, is just that, a theory. Pretending modern theories are "facts", while millenia old understandings are just "popular conception", is a fundamentally inaccurate approach to both fact and history, and not in accord with Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Make it six editors. I have searched the web and have yet to find out who coined the term "ritual decalogue," which scholars use the term, and how notable it is. At best it is part of an argument in Higher Criticism. This is not at all the same thing as something people believe in. The "Ten Commandments" are not just things God allegedly told or gave to Moses; they are things the Children of Israel received from God. Provide me with evidence that Jews are divided as to what are the "Ten Commandments" and I will believe that there are there may be another set of ten commandments. Or just tell me when the two words "ritual decalogue" were first used in relation to Exodus 34. By whom? Did people agree with him? How many? The fact is, the idea of a "cultic decalogue" was just Wellhausen's theory. It is one scholar's idea, part of an argument about dating the different sources of the Torah. Discussion of this belongs in an article on the Higher Criticism, not on the Ten Commandments. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One section in this article mentioning the Ritual Decalogue is all that this specific article needs. There are at least four different ways that the Ten Commandments of the Ethical Decalogue can be numbered. Adding the Ritual Decalogue to that mix serves simply to confuse people. If the point is to confuse people, then add the list of the Ten Commandments that are found in Nevi'im, Ketuvim, The_Gospels, and the Pauline_epistles to this article. If the point is to explain what has both historically, and generally been meant by Ten Commandments, then the only lists that are appropriate are those from Deuteronomy 5 and Exodus 20.jonathon (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, as you see, there are now seven editors who disagree with your insistence on inserting the modern theory of a "Ritual Decalogue" into the table listing the two versions of the actual Ten Commandments. Is that enough for you? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Make that 8. The RD does not belong here. -- Avi (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Make it 9. Another attempt at revisionism; aka: rewriting of history by 'new age' theorists eager to go against everything known to make a name for themselves. We are not talking about a new approach to synthesizing DNA here where radical theories make breakthroughs. Re-interpretation of the book of Exodus by a handful of people does not merit their inclusion in the main article. There is also a handful of people who deny that the Holocaust existed, and a handful of people who believe that a Jewish conspiracy masterminded by G.W. Bush was responsible for 9/11. Does that merit their opinions, which go against all evidence, to be legitimized in an encyclopedia article? I am against RD. Meishern (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

One scholar, who wants the TCs to be the ED, tries to explain it away be proposing that the phrase 'TCs' was a later addition motivated by the wording in Deut. This actually makes a lot of sense; Ex. 34 reads better without the phrase. Nonetheless, Ex. 34 is the only place in the Bible when the phrase is unambiguously attached to a specific list of commandments, a correlation obvious enough to be commented on modern editions of the Bible, such as the annotated NRSV. Somehow I don't think the editors of the annotated NRSV are a bunch of "'new age' theorists eager to go against everything known to make a name for themselves".

34.1-35: God renews the covenant by writing the commands again. The narrator here inserts a different version of the Ten Commandments (see v. 28), since the first version (20.2-17) has already been recorded. Scholars call this version (vv. 11-26) the "Ritual Decalogue." (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition, New Revised Standard Version, 2007)

— kwami (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This source gives us no clue as to which scholars, and how many. This is in fact a theory proposed by Wellhausen, and it is his wording. He argued that the ED (what we all call the ten commandments) was authored by E, and that the "cultic decalogue" was authored by J - since J was from Judea, it emphasizes the Temple and ritual. This is hypothesis, actually part of a hypothesis, proposed by Wellhausen. It deserves being mentioned, but it is one historian's hypothesis. I think many historians agree with Wellhausen that the two texts were written by different people at different times. But there is no grounds for thinking that Wellhausen believed that Protestants (or Jews) of his own day thought of these as a version of the "ten commandments." My point is that scholars and laypeople often use the same words to mean different things.

In principle I have no objection to including discussion of a "cultic decalogue" in the article, but only if we did so with integrity, and that means actually explaining with a commitment to minimal accuracy the actual theory that proposes that there is such a thing called the Cultic Decalogue. That means dividing the article into two parts, a first part which is how the Bible is read by Jews and Christians today, in which Jews and Christians agree as to which Chapter/verses of Exodus and Deuteronomy comprise the ten commandments but differ in how they divide them into ten, and a second part which goes on to say that historians working in the tradition of the Higher Criticism believe that the Torah is comprised of four sources and that each version of the ten commandments Jews and Christians believe in were wrieetn by different authors and moreover there is a third "decalogue" written by a third author.

My point is this: NPOV demands that we represent different views, but this article has been misrepresenting different views, because there are two distinct discussions here, one is between Jews and Christians, and the other is between Higher Critics who believe in multiple authorship by humans and those who believe in singe authorship (either by God or a divinely inspired human). To mix up these two discussions is to misrepresent all the views by ignoring their context. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets get back to the foundation of this discussion. The Ten Commandments were given by God to Moses according to the Torah. I am sure it was not the first time laws punishing murder, theft or adultery were proclaimed by prophets of the ancient gods long forgotten. Its not as if before Moses came down from Horeb with the commandments, religious leaders encouraged their flock to emulate a person who murdered his neighbor, raped his wife and stole his donkey. The point is that this article is about the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God and described in the Torah. All parts describing the event agree that a very large group of people heard God's voice describe the first 2 Commandments. Deuteronomy is a collection of sermons given by Moses 1-40 years after the Ten Commandments were given and almost immediately smashed and recreated. I would look at Exodus since during those 40 years in the desert the phrasing of the original language would have been recorded, displayed and repeated during Holy Days and passed on via oral tradition. I say, put a sentence that a few words are different between what 80+ year old Moses said during a sermon and what tens of thousand of people heard the voice of God proclaimed (as well as looked at) 40 years earlier (let not forget that the second set of the tablets was accessible, and Moses was a human and not a divine being and thus the content of his sermons can not override the original words of God). Link it with a blurb. Meishern (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You are simply stating one POV that is already in the article. The question is, how to accommodate the other POV's other editors have brought up. Your commentd doesn't help us address that in any way. So we can just ignore what you said as off-topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

SL, your approach seems eminently reasonable. I would prefer that all Decalogues/TCs would be covered in this article, though of course extensive detail might be split off. I had accepted a separate RD article because I figured it wasn't worth trying to fight editors who wish to restrict this article to one POV, as long as the refs to the RD were clear enough to not mislead the reader.

There are, however, multiple views of the RD, even among those who accept it as a version of the TCs. Wellhausen's hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, and I've seen good arguments both for the RD being older than the ED, rather than parallel to it, and also for its being younger. By noting that the phase "TCs" is associated with a text that most people throughout history have not accepted as the TCs (with various contortions to explain away the wording), we don't need to present Wellhausen's or any other scholar's views as the theory of the RD. It would be interesting IMO to contrast these views, just as we do with the ED.

IMO, your two-part approach, part 1 for the conception of the TCs in various religious traditions, and part 2 for critical/historical views, including the RD, would make this a much stronger article. — kwami (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

@Slrubenstein, must every POV be accommodated even if 9 editors are against it and what, 2-3 are for it and a handful of scholars think it may possibly, probably, perhaps be feasible (hypothesis)? Meishern (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The sub-section 5.6 The Ritual Decalogue covers the The Ritual Decalogue. Adding more is only pushing WP:Undue. As far as the other lists of the Ten Commandments in either the Tanakh or New Testament go,you are in Wp:Fringe territory. One could make a plausible case that calling the Ritual Decalogue the Ten Commandments falls under WP:Fringe.jonathon (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, only one editor is for it. This article is about the Ten Commandments. The Ritual Decalogue article is about the modern "higher criticism" theories regarding various hypothetical decalogues - well, only one theory currently, but it could certainly accommodate more. Keep in mind, these modern "decalogues" themselves are only "ten" through various sleights of hand - that is, they all have more than ten commandments in them, but the proposers invariably combine them in various ways to make them come out to ten. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And the ED is ten through anything other than slight of hand? Why then do different denominations not agree on their numbering? The RD is easier to count as ten than the ED is, as several of the refs at RD attest to. Again with the various other "decalogues", but this one is called the Decalogue, as even the annotated NRSV attests. — kwami (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's true that the actual "Ten Commandments" has more than ten commandments in it too; but then, the Hebrew term for them is actually "ten statements", not ten commandments. In any event, there is an ancient and essentially universally accepted received tradition that there are ten of them. With the modern theoretical decalogues, however, the only reason for making them come out to ten is so that they can be directly equated with the original Ten Commandments - not because there are inherently ten of them. In other words, the standard, even for these modern "decalogues", is still the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you Kwami? It's not a question of whether the whole business of the Ritual Decalogue is a fringe theory or mainstream scholarship. The point is, quite simply, that it's not what this article is about. It's not a case of saying, first, "let's write an article entitled The Ten Commandments" in a vacuum and then working out what the title means and writing the article accordingly. Rather, this article is about the identified text(s) which most people call by that name, rightly or wrongly; and it is titled "The Ten Commandments" because, and only because, anyone wanting to find out about those texts will in fact look under that heading. Referring to other texts because that's what the phrase "Ten Commandments" should have been used to mean is quite simply a false trade description.

In other words, the title exists to identify the topic, not the topic to fit the title. Whether the title fits the topic semantically or etymogically (because the Commandments do or do not number ten) does not matter a row of beans. It's like those idiots who complain about the use of "anti-Semitism" to mean Jew-hatred when it should equally mean hatred of Arabs, Aramaeans, Ethiopians etc. Words mean what they are used to mean, however illogically. It's a case of Popper's nominalistic principle: the definition "a puppy is a young dog" exists to answer the question "what shall we call a young dog", not the question "what is a puppy". By your logic the article should deal only with the Ritual Decalogue, and omit the normal text altogether!

It is an important fact about the Ten Commandments we have that they may or may not have been modelled on the RD, and this theory should be mentioned in one section. Similarly the RD is an important topic in itself and deserves its own article. But it is absolutely wrong, in this article, to move the RD up to a position parallel with the accepted texts as if they were equally what is meant by the title of the article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)(and I agree that titles should match topics, not the other way around.) The bottom line is, there are two distinct and separate conversations (or arguments): one among the faithful (between Christians and Jews) that is over a shared idea (that there are "tencommandments"), and one among historians concerned with dating and ascribing authorship to distinct passages. What is important is that Wikipedia cover both "conversations." Given that there are separate articles for the covenant code and the ritual decalogue, my own view is this: there is no need to repeat that material at all here. It is sufficient to tell readers that critical historians look at this text from a completely different point of view and ask different questions that take them in different directions, and provide a link. Moreover, I think the articles on the covenant code and the ritual decalogue ought to be merged and rewritten so they make some sense; both are virtually unintelligible, and each article refers to the other. I think we should spend less time bickering over what could all too easily be misconstrued as an argument between POV-pushers (religious versus secular) and instead focus on what communicates the right information to the reader in the best way. I really do believe two articles makes sense, because each article speaks to very idiffernt interests and likely, different audiences. We could then expend our energies instead in making sure each article is actually good. A link between the two should overcome any objections. Does anyone oppose this? Note: I am asking some admin who agrees with me to merge the Higher Criticism articles (covenant code and ritual decalogue) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Myles, I guess I don't get it. The phrases "Ten Commandments" and "Decalogue" have both a traditional understanding, and an academic understanding, and no-one has yet demonstrated that they are not synonyms. I fail to see why the academic understanding, one notable enough to be covered by the annotated NRSV, should be excluded from the article. If a significant number of people still considered whales to be fish, would that mean the article mammal should not cover whales, except for a footnote that some academics include them too?

SL, would you like to draught a merger of Covenant Code and Ritual Decalogue? If you don't want to merge them yourself, I will.

I keep coming back, though, to a comparison of all three decalogues (the two ID'd as such in the Bible, and the two commonly accepted as such). The appropriate place for such a comparison would not be an article on just one of them, but in the article that covers all three. — kwami (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, we've been through this before. It's at best provocative to state as fact that the "Ritual Decalogue" is "ID'd" as a decalogue in the Bible. That's a modern theory, not an uncontroversial fact. In addition, nine other editors disagree with your singular view that "all three" need a comparison here. Are you attempting to work with other editors, or is your intent merely to provoke? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I expect that an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic. As SL noted, as have others before, there is more than one POV here, and an encyclopedia should include them. The Bible clearly called Ex.34 the "Ten Commandments", something which has been cited from many RSs. True, the conventional wisdom is that the phrase applied to a different passage, but we shouldn't delete what we don't agree with. I expect better than that of every editor. — kwami (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, you are making two errors. First, you are confused about the Higher Criticism argument. The Bible does not call Exodus 34 another "ten commandments." Wellhausen and other Higher Critics are definitely not comparing the bulk of Exodus 34 to Exodus 20 (the ten commandments); they are comparing it to Exodus 21-23, the so-called "book of the covenant." There are two parallels. The first parallel is between Exodus 20 and Exodus 34:1-4, in which God produces for Moses the Ten Commandments. The second is what follows: Exodus 21-23, and Exodus 34:10-28, in which we have two versions of "the book of the covenant," additional commandments. Do you see the structure? Chapter 34 recapitulates in condenses form Exodus 20-23. 34:1-4 is a highly condensed account of Exodus 20 (God writing the ten commandments) and 34: 10-28 is a highly condensed form of Exodus 20-23. According to Kaufmann, the stone tablets were kept in the ark of the covenant, while the book of the covenant was read to the people (Kaufmann dates the book of the covenant to the time of Josiah).^[3] This is mainstrean scholarly opinion. You are completely mixing up the point they are claiming.

Second, Kwami, you are mixing apples and oranges. The only reason to compare all three (ED in Exodus, CD in Exodus, ED in Deuteronomy) is in the context of a discussion among Higher Critics concerning authorship and dating. But the comparison that this article traditionally is about is not about three texts written by different authors at different times. Rather, it is about one text which Jews and Christians agree consist of ten statements (or commandments), but disagree as to what the ten are, i.e. producing different religious interpretations of the same text. Don't you see the difference? To try to do both at the same time would lead to pointless confusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the Bible does call them that. That's the whole point!

The lists of Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 5 are called "ten commandments" in the biblical text (The Hebrew Bible: A Brief Socio-Literary Introduction. Norman Gottwald, 2008:118)

If it were just Wellhausen, I wouldn't bother. But the Talmud theorizes on how the phrase TCs in Ex34 isn't really about Ex34, and that predates Wellhausen. Why should the Talmud do that, unless a literal reading would lead one to conclude that Ex34 is the TCs? Of course W. et al. aren't comparing Ex.34 to Ex.20, but they do note that Ex.34 are one of the TCs in the Bible. Since this article is about the TCs in the Bible, IMO that is relevant. I'm not trying to claim that they are the same list! Again,

The Ten Commandments occur in three versions. (Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Alexander & Baker, 2003:501)

If this article is not about different texts, why do we compare different texts? By choosing two out of the three, we're siding with the traditional POV that only two are relevant. That's true culturally, but we should be talking a broader approach than that. How can we claim that the RD is not relevant when Bibles annotations point out that it's the TCs?

The narrator here inserts a different version of the Ten Commandments (see v. 28) (The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition, New Revised Standard Version, 2007)

— kwami (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• First, you have failed to respond to my comments, showing you have run out of arguments. You are one POV pusher against consensus, and I think we are close to ending this discussion.
• Please verify your claim that the bible calls Exodus 34:11-24 "the Ten Commandments." You wrote that the Bible clearly states this, and I want to see if you can put your money where your mouth is. Where does the bible "clearly" state this.
• So you have proven that you can misread a dictionary. I want to know if you have any clue as to what you are talking about. Who was the first scholar to identify Exodus 34 as a "ritual decalogue?" Can you provide me with an encyclopedic citation (book title, page number) - I mean for the scholar who first hypothesized this. Can you provide me with book titles and page numbers with discussions comparing what you can the "ritual" and the "ethical" decalogue? You rannotated Bible is not helpful. If we are to write an encyclopedia article, we need to know whose argument this is, when it was first formulated, and how other scholars responded to it. If we do not have this information to put into an article, we are not ready to write an article on the topic. If this is so important to you, do some real research. But until you can answer these questions, there is no basis for taking your claims seriously. A note in an your Bible makes this a view, but doesn't make it a notable view (we cannot assess how notable it is without seeing what weight it is given in major scholarship on the Hebrew Bible) and even if it were notable, we simply cannot explain this view without knowing more about who first formulated the view, who holds it, how established it is, why they hold it, what its significance it is. I have read through Wellhausen, Kaufmann, and Noth and they say practically nothing on this which tells me it is a minor or trivial view. What books have you read?
• What is your source for the Talmud? What Masechet and what daf? Which rabbis are engaged in the discussion? Can you spell out what you mean?

Slrubenstein | Talk 10:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I did respond to your comments, and you've ignored my response.

I don't know the first scholar who called Ex34 the RD; perhaps Goethe. That request sets an impossibly high standard, as all we can do is find the earliest use of the term in sources we have available. Who was the first to use the phrase "Ten Commandments"? If you cannot determine that to certainty, does that mean we shouldn't have an article on the TCs? Come on.

Where (how) did I misread a dictionary?

I've seen Talmudic arguments that Ex34 is not the TCs, but cannot locate them now. If I could, that would be considered OR anyway.

Again, I'm not concerned with the response of scholars to any particular interpretation of the RD, but to the RD itself. Wellhausen's specific views may or may not be notable, and the same for Goethe, but the RD is covered in multiple RSs in discussions of the TCs.

You've also deleted all mention of the RD from the intro, despite years of consensus that a mention there is appropriate. I've replaced it with a hatnote. — kwami (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami and Slr, we are not meant to be editing this page. The fact that you are both admins means that nothing stops you from doing so. I find the current hatnote even more ridiculous than using the intro as a vehicle. JFW | T@lk 22:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Granted. I reverted both of us, to the version protected by SlimVirgin. — kwami (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not know the name of the person who first came up with the phrase "the ten words," which is what Jews call them, but I do know it was an author of Exodus and an author of Deuteronomy. Wellhausen suggests that scribes working under Josaih produced most of Deuteronomy, but they may have worked from earlier sources. But when it comes to "ritual decalogue," yes, I do want you to tell me who first proposed it. this is not at all unfair and it is not an impossibly high standard. We know that Einstein first proposed the theory of relativity in relation to Maxwell's equations - Galileo first made the general point about relativity. So we know who coined these terms and it is important because they represent important theories in physics. "Ritual decalogue" - you are claiming - is an important theory among Bible scholars. Well, okay, who first proposed it? You want to write encyclopedia articles, how about doing some research? I am not holding you to an impossibly high standard. Our article on the theory of evolution goes into great detail about the history of the idea of evolution, including Darwin but not exclusively. So it seems that many Wikipedians know how to research the articles they write. It is an embarassment to pass off poorly-researched articles on Biblical topics as equally encyclopedic. If you respect the topic enough to say it merits an encyclopedia article, do the research. I tried to do the research, consulting several major books on the Old testament and the religion of ancient Israel, and found nothing. So I am suspicious. But at least I tried. Now it looks like you are not even willing to try, yet insist we believe you that this theory is important when our own attempts to research it suggest it is at best a minor or fringe view. You have the gall to dismiss the work I just put into this, when you are unwilling to do any work of your own?

Kwami, the reason I asked you those questions was first, because we need to establish the notability of this view. I have just gone through four major works on the Hebrew Bible and none of them refer to this, which makes me think it is a non-notable view. Based on the sources I checked - Wellhausen, Kaufmann, Noth, and Hayes' textbook on Old Testament Study, there just is no "ritual decalogue" and since these are major players in the debates, if they do not mention it, I have to wonder whether it is a fringe view or at least one that is so minor that it doesn't merit any weight. So I am asking how many books you have read that have gone into depth on this. Since I just spent a day going through several books, why is it unfair to ask what books you have read? Isn't that a way to assess notability? If we knew who first introduced the concept, and in what context, and which other scholars have used the concept, and in what ways, we would be better positioned to assess its notability.

Second, we need to explain points of view accurately and as I explained in my 21:55, 9 July, I think you are misrepresenting what it is scholars are actually saying. I summarized what the various books - by major scholars - that I have read say. It suggests you are misrepresenting this point of view. And no, you have NOT yet responded to that. Also, you continue to say that Exodus 34 calls the section in question "the ten commandments" ("clearly" was your word) and I asked you where specifically the Bible calls it a "ten commandments" and NO, so far you have not responded to that, either. I do not see how we can write about this in an NPOV way unless we have detailed sourses for this view, with detailed explanations of what they mean and why, with context. That is why I asked you about who first introduced the concept and who has used it. Without these sources I don't see that we have any ay of knowing that we as editors understand what the concept "cultic decalogue" means, who thinks it is important and why. And if we do not know these things, how can we write about them accurately? The basic rule of Wikipedia is that this is an encyclopedia and must have encyclopedic standards.

Jtdwolff, can you review this discussion and tell us what criteria you think we should follow to determine when there has been enough discussion and consensus has been reached? My only intention in editing was to make the article conform to a consensus on the talk page: Ten editors on one side, Kwami on the other, and he has not been able to support his claims. Why do you think this discussion should continue? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

SL, my apologies if I misread your questions.

The inclusion of the RD in the intro of this article was the consensus of all editors the last time this was discussed. That's a separate issue from including them in the comparison table.

AFAIK, the first person to call Ex34 the RD (or the Cultic Decalogue, I'm not sure what would be the best translation) was Goethe. However, IMO the notability is not limited to the acceptance of his specific interpretation. Some say that the RD predates the ED, others that it postdates it, still others that it's a parallel tradition, and of course there's the traditional view that Ex34.28 does not refer to Ex34 at all, but to Ex20. It's relevant here due to all of those views.

Kosmala is one who attributes the modern use of the phrase to Wellhausen. (There is an endnote there which I cannot access, and which might mention Goethe as a precursor.) His introductory paragraph states,

The theory that the cultic laws contained in Ex. xxxiv 14 (or 18)-26 form a "decalogue", the original "ten words (= commandments)" as mentioned in verse 28bss, was introduced into modern Old Testament criticism by Julius WELLHAUSEN. It found support in the supposition now widely and perhaps rightly accepted as a fact, that the predominantly ethical laws of our traditional Decalogue (Ex. xx 1-17) were originally not part of the Book of Exodus but inserted later in their present place. WELLHAUSEN found many followers in the 20th century (K. BUDDE, B. STADE, A. KLOSTERMANN, C. STEUERNAGEL, G. WILDEBOER, C. F. KENT, H. HOLZINGER, G. BEER, and many others). Indeed, most Old Testament scholars of name advocated this view.

He goes on to say that some scholars take the theory for granted, while others are reluctant to accept it.

You asked where I think the Bible "clearly" calls Ex.34 the TCs:

And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables [...] And He said: 'Behold, I make a covenant [...] And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.' And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words.

To me, that couldn't be clearer. Certainly much clearer than associating the phrase "TCs" in Deut. 4 with the list in Deut. 5. But it's not just me. For example, Kosmala believes the phrase "TCs", which he accepts without question as referring to Ex34, was a later addition, that Ex34 was a covenant made because of the Golden Calf. So in his opinion Ex34 has nothing to do with the TCs, despite the fact that they are called the TCs in the Bible. In his words,

somebody added two words to v. 28b: "the ten words (= commandments)". They were intended as a comment: the words of the covenant are the Ten Commandments.

That is, here is a scholar who believes Ex34 are not the Ten Commandments, but nonetheless accepts that the Bible calls them the Ten Commandments.

Much of this WP article discuss how the TCs are given to Moses on the Mountain, and placed in the Ark. This is the traditional view, and the image that most people have regardless of their faith. However, in attempting to explain how Ex34 is not the TCs, Kosmala concludes that the TCs are a later addition to Exodus, and that the only commandments originally in Exodus were the Covenant Code. Since the traditional view of the TCs is that they are the covenant code (lower case, that is, the commandments on the stone tablets given to Moses in Exodus), IMO we should cover the Covenant Code/RD in any neutral article on the TCs.

Kosmala is one example. I'm sure you can find plenty of others where scholars have wondered how Ex34 can be called the TCs when they are so different from Deut. 5. (I'll present others if you like.) Regardless of whether scholars accept Ex34 as the TCs, whether they think the RD predates or postdates the ED, whether the TCs are a later redaction to Exodus, or why they think the phrase TCs appears in Ex34:28, it is clear from multiple sources that many many scholars accept Ex34:28 as referring to Ex34, and indeed even see it as obvious. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, you wrote:

You asked where I think the Bible "clearly" calls Ex.34 the TCs:

And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables [...] And He said: 'Behold, I make a covenant [...] And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.' And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten words.

To me, that couldn't be clearer.

The problem is that you're working from a translation. The Masoretic text clearly has a major paragraph break between verses 26 and 27 of chapter 34 in Exodus. You may be aware that there are two types of paragraph breaks. A closed break is a minor one, while an open break is a major one. That's the kind of break that exists here.

Another problem is that you keep talking about how the actual ten commandments contain more than 10 commandments. This is yet another artifact of translation. The "ten commandments" are nowhere referred to as "ten commandments". They are ten things. Some of those things contain more than one commandment.

Finally, no one is suggesting that the so-called Ritual Decalogue be omitted from Wikipedia. Nor even from this article. It has an article of its own, and a small subsection here with a link to that one is all that's appropriate. Please stop pushing one view out of a vast number down everyone's throats. You're violating WP:UNDUE. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

People are, however, suggesting that all mention of it be deleted from the lede. A clarification that this is not the only article concerning what are called the TCs (mistranslation or not) is certainly appropriate.

I don't keep talking about how the TCs contain more than ten Cs. Perhaps you were reading s.o. else's comments?

I also don't mean to question your Hebrew, but isn't 'thing' for דבר a modern meaning? I thought in OT times it meant 'term' (or perhaps more narrowly 'word', as it's normally translated), cognate with the verbal use of the same root, דבר 'to speak'.

Don't the paragraph divisions of the MT long postdate the texts themselves? This is speculation, but if there was, even at a relatively early date, an attempt to distance Ex34:28 from the preceding verses, wouldn't adding a major break be one way to do it? At least, the sources I've seen (many clearly conversant with the Hebrew text, not just with translation) have no doubt that v.28 is part of the RD narrative. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

off topic. very interesting discussion. this must be how the Talmud was written. my vote stands though. Meishern (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwame, what do you mean, "There is an endnote there which I cannot access, and which might mention Goethe as a precursor?" It is missing from your copy of the book? Don't all public libraries have inter-library loan? Why not just ask your library to get you a better copy? Also, for K. Budde, B. Stade, A. Klostermann, C. Steuernagel, G. Wildeboer, C. F. Kent, H. Holzinger, G. Beer we need book titles and page numbers. I assume you own these books. If you do not, it is regrettable that you did not take good notes when you read them, but again, surely you can order them inter-library loan, right?

This is essential because it is my understanding that none of these scholars believe that the "ten commandments" (meaning, whatever God inscribed on the two tablets, which is how Exodus explains the phrase) refers to Exodus 34: 10-28. As Lisa points out, after 34:28 there is a paragraph break. You ask, "Don't the paragraph divisions of the MT long postdate the texts themselves." Probably, it is impossible to say. But we do know that the chapters and verse numbers you have been relying on long post-date the MT. So Lisa's point stands, and your response to her is pointless.

As for the scholars who discuss the authorship and dating of different segments of the text, these scholars understand the ten commandments to refer to Exodus 20:1-21; Moses breaks the original two tablets and God rewrites them in Exodus 34:1-9 and Exodus 34: 29 on. This is the "later addition" they are arguing. But this is all refering to the ten commandments. In other words, to save Lisa from having to answer, you keep acting like there is "another ten commandments." But this is not what established critical Bible scholars think, this is your own original research, you are pushing your own novel point of view. I think you are in part misunderstanding the critics whom you mention. I also think you are citing only those critics who wrote in the 19th century and whose interpretations have been rejected by 20th century scholarship. I mayb be wrong, which is why I keep asking you to provide your sources. A list of names is not enough. We need to know when each person published, page numbers, and what exactly they wrote. This is important because i believe you are misrepresenting their arguments. If you want to defend yourself, provide us with sufficient quotes from each of these scholars, and evidence that their views are still held today.

You keep mixing up an argument about dates with an argument about "versions" of the "ten commandments." The other material here - Exodus 21-23, which is recapitulated in Exodus 34: 10-28 - are they argue older but they are not calling any of this the ten commandments. You are misrepresenting what they say. You attribute one argument to them, an argument about dating, and then you misread your Bible translation and you think you know that they are therefore claiming that there is "another ten commandments." I think you are misreading K. Budde, B. Stade, A. Klostermann, C. Steuernagel, G. Wildeboer, C. F. Kent, H. Holzinger, G. Beer and that is why I want titles of books, page numbers, and quotes. I want you to verify your claims by showing me exactly where they say these things. Otherwise, I am convinced you are misrepresenting them. In short, you have to verify your arguments. The more contorversial a claim, the more important it is to verify it. And here you are the only editor who believes what you are saying. Every other editor, including several who are very knowledgable about the Bible, find your claims preposterous. I have gone through several books and find nothing to support your claims. So yes, under these circumstances, you have to support your claims. We need evidence that the people you just mentioned say what you claim they say.

By the way, the only reason they are claiming that the Ten Commandments were added after the "covenant colde" (Exodus 21-23, Exodus 34:10-28) is because the "coventnat code" talks about ritual and the Ten Commandments is ethical. There are two problems here: first, the Ten Commandments are not strictly ethical, or, it depends on what you mean by ethics. Second, their only reason for attributing a later date to the Ten Commandments is their belief that ethics developed after ritual. They were what we today call unilineal evolutionists, they believed that all cultures progress from the crude to the refined, and they considered sacrifice crude and ethics refined, so ethics "has to" come after refined. You cited 19th century scholars, and in almost any field of Western knowledge, the 19th century was dominated by the myth of progress. 20th century scholars for the most part have rejected this myth. And if you look at Bible scholars today (and I do not mean religious fundamentalists, i mean critical scholars who believe that the Torah had many human authors writing at different times) most reject this claim.

To say that some scholars believe that the Coventant Code predates the Ten Commandments is like saying some scholars believe in phlogisten and others do not, or some scholars believe in ether and others do not. And you would be right! I can even provide names to all these scholars. But any knowledgable person who knew the sources would thn see that all the believers in phlogisten were in the 18th century, and all the believefrs in ether in the 19th century. No 20th century chemist or physicist accept these theories today. Should the articles on chemistry and physics give equal weight to both "theories?" That would be absurd. We do not take 19th century beliefs in physics and accord them equal status to 20th century beliefs. To give them equal weight in an article is just ludicrous. Therefore it is critical that we know when these scholars wrote, and how they are accepted today by scholars of comparable stature. You seem to think they deserve equal or even prominent weight. I say they do not. I have given reasons, and you can prove me wrong just by providing quotations or more detailed summaries of what they wrote, along with page numbers and year of publication. Yet in the two weeks we have been debating this, you continue to refuse to do so. Why?

Kwame, if you want to write an encyclopedia article, you have to do the research. If you won't do the research, if you do not know what you are talking about, please, go write articles on topics in which you do have expertise. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@Kwame, i am not sure why you are so keen on 19th and 20th century biblical scholars. Wouldn't, lets say, 12th century scholars as Moses Maimonides be a bit closer to the time in question? With access to books long lost to us today? Since you view this all as a legend, lets look at Homer, wouldn't you prefer to hear the opinion of Herodotus about the Trojan War than people living 2500 years later? You seem to put so much faith in the opinions of 19th and 20th century historians, but conveniently discount the sources upon which this is all based as well as commentary much closer to the date the events occurred. As a man falling from a tree, you try to grasp branches breaking under the weight of your strange arguments. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish yet, but these 10 laws, commandments, words of god, rules, whichever way different languages translate them, became what they are from that one event in Exodus. If someone finds the Code of Hamurabi part II, dated earlier, with these same commandments, we can talk about rephrasing this article. Don't follow blindly, the recently born people as if they were present at the event thousands of years earlier unless there is archaeological undisputed proof. Meishern (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

@Meishern, "@Kwame, i am not sure why you are so keen on 19th and 20th century biblical scholars. Wouldn't, lets say, 12th century scholars as Moses Maimonides be a bit closer to the time in question?" If Kwame is favoring modern scholars over medieval ones, then that's good WP editing. You might personally prefer Maimonides, but WP policy is to rely on contemporary scholarship. Contemporary historians have better tools for analyzing the Tanakh than Maimonides did. Leadwind (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)