Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 9

I propose that the first sentence of the second paragraph be revised thus:

The Ten Commandments identify their source as the Lord God, who directed the Exodus ...

Now it is clear that we are providing the Biblical name and title for God, and I think everyone agrees that then it is appropriate to use capital letters. Problem solved! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from. But, in wikipedias voice, we are going to state, without qualification, that God directed the Exodus? There is good evidence that the Exodus never happened. I think we need to make it clear that these are the tenents of a religon, not a historical account. Steve kap (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments identify their source as the Lord God, who, in the Biblical narrative, directed the Exodus ... (more information = better) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, that is really not very good. It is the character of God himself who in the first commandment claims to have directed the exodus ("asher hotzeitikha me'eretz mitzrayim") not "the Biblical narrative". It should be what is was before, only with the relevant capitalization, and with the comma after God removed, which would make it clear that the God's claim of directing the exodus is part of the story. Zargulon (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

In the biblical narative, true, it is the character of God that makes these claims and statements. Outside of the bible narative, however, it's anybodys guess if these things even happened. I support Slrubenstein's suggestion. Steve kap (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another way to go is 'according to religous tradition...' or some such statement.Steve kap (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Ten Commandments are already part of the biblical narrative, Steve. Repeating this by saying "in the biblical narrative" is redundant. Zargulon (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow Zargulon. We agree the 10C are part of a biblical narrative. So how is saying so redundent? Unless we have said so earlier? Is that the case, and maybe I'm just missing it? Steve kap (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, your suggestions are fine. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Zargulon, We can debate ad infinitim whether there really is a God who really did take the Children of Israel out of Egypt with an outstretched hand. At WP however editors should seek ways to avoid endless debates. My proposal looks for something we can all agree on: the source for our knowledge (however differently e perceive and interpret it) is a text. That is what I mean "according to the Biblical narrative." When you say "God did it," surely you agree that you know this because it is found in the Biblical narrative.

I think that I could propose an edit that Jayjg and Steve kap both agree to makes this the happiest day of my life. If someone actually makes the edit and it sticks I have half a mind to give myself a barnstar! (I know, I can't). If this is what has been holding us up, let's make the change and unprotect the page and move forward!Slrubenstein | Talk 10:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Slrubinstein, let me be the first to congratulate you on this, the happiest day of your life. Say a shehehiyanu.

The sentence you have proposed sounds dumb.. "The Ten Commandments say something or other.. in the biblical narrative." It is just redundant and really bad style.. the Ten Commandments are intrinsically part of the Biblical narrative. It also obfuscates the fact that the clause about the Exodus from Egypt is not just a random fact from the biblical narrative, but specifically part of the Ten Commandments. That is my objection - bad style and pointless ambiguity. My objection is nothing to do with whether there really is a God, as you seem to think.

Being in the minority I would not revert you if you completed the edit. But equally you should realize that sentences which sound stupid are an excuse for random troublemakers or those with an agenda to 'improve' them. An article which is written well, by contrast, gives the impression of having smart editors monitoring it, and encourages troublemakers to go elsewhere. I hope you, or I, or someone else, will find something better rather than authoring something embarrassing which stores up trouble for the future. Zargulon (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I have realized it is not the happiest day of the year so I cannot say a Shehechianu (it may be the second happiest though). I am glad you won't revert. To try to help you feel better, let me point out two thins: first, I would agree with you that we should never write anything in an encyclopedia article that is dumb, our policies thankfully do not prohibit us from writing anything that "sounds" dumb. Second, pleeeeease consider this: it sounds dumb to you because you know a lot. The average reader of an encyclopedia article know a lot less about the topic than you do, and will have thought much less about these things than you have thought. Please consider the possibility that it sonds dumb to you for good reasons but these reasons are the same good reasons for why it won't sound dumb to someone else ... and that someone else matters. Put another way, we may write the articles, but we write them for readers for those people who are not qualified to write them. I am just trying to offer you a way to find value in this for yourself. Slrubenstein | Talk

Thanks, I appreciate it. Nonetheless I hope this will be improved on soon. Zargulon (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You could just start with "According to religous tradition.." or "Accoring to Judio-Christian holy books.." or anything like that. Then you cay say almost anything you like, if its verifiable. You can say "God" meaning Yawhey. I'd still object to "our Lord God", because that has additional implications, its presumptuous. My main objection is using God as a name, before you've established which god you're talking about. And I object in general when tenents of a religon are presented without qualification, as "true". I think we can all agree on that. Steve kap (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, could we start with "According to the Ten Commandments.. ", would that be acceptable?

I think thats fine, but I suggest no "Lord". Lord isn't a name along the lines of Joe or Frank. Its more like when I call my someone "My Dear". And someone thats "My Dear" might not be your dear. Sim... your "Lord" might not be my lord. Steve kap (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But kap, this is not what you think. or what i think. Or what any editor thinks. if we are going to say "According to the biblical narrative" we have to report accurately what the narrativesays, and it uses the phrase "Lord God" as does the text of the Ten Commandments. We won't misquote just to suit your whim. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The texts don't say "Lord God". The text say "Yawhey". "Lord God", if my understanding is correct, is what observent Jewish people say, out loud, to avoid saying Yawhey, becuase of a taboo against saying Yawhey. Steve kap (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing we use the tetragrammaton?Slrubenstein | Talk 21:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• The tetragrammaton is Hebrew. The standard custom in English translation, following the example of the Greek New Testament, is to substitute the word LORD when the vowel points indicate that the Hebrew word for Lord is substituted, and the word GOD when the vowel points indicate that the Hebrew word for God is substituted. The two templates were designed to be used where scripture is quoted, to be accurate. When not quoting text where those two forms are used, it is not necessary for Wikipedia's voice to use the templates, but simply Lord, or God, with of course a third party reference, or accurate summary or paraphrase of the primary source, which in our context is the biblical text. —Telpardec (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • We could use partial quotes to avoid having Wiki-voice declare the Lord is God:
    
    Spoken^[1] to the people gathered at mount Sinai^[2], Exodus 20:2 begins: "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt", and the commands prohibit them from having other gods before him... etc. (Underlined part beginning with "having" is the existing text from there.) How does that grab you? —Telpardec (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Temporary reflist:

Orphaned part of my 28Jul2011 message re-attached, 3 messages of 29Jul2011 reordered in chronological order below. Telpardec (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I like it, using the quotes. We could also hyperlink the "I am the lord they (your) God" to the ariticle of the same name. That article also give the alternate translation (which I believe is more accurate) "I am Yahew, your god". So, it would satisfy all sides, I'd think. In general I'm in favor of simply stating what the text says, rather than an interpretation. Unless it is clearly stated that the statenment is an interpretation, and in what context. Steve kap (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a point of fact, you say its the standard custom to sub. the work "Lord" when, Yahwey is in the original, and true, thats what most English bibles do. But, and its a bit but...it is also the custom to state clearly, in the intro, or in "notes of translation", this is what is done. In other words, most bibles will state up front that, say, LORD is used for Yahwey, and God is used for something else, etc. 130.76.96.150 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)(forgot to logon)Steve kap (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, the Ten Commandments refer to their source as "the Lord God." Yahew is not an accepted translation. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not presently making the suggestion, but if the criteria is to be using the gods name to identify what god we are talkng about, as SLR suggests, then Yawhey would the best choice. It from the hebrew, yes, but in English. Like any other name from a different language. Steve kap (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No-one proposed it as a translation. We're not translating. Again, a confusion of Hebrew and English: the question is how best to word this in English, not how it would be worded in biblical Hebrew. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the point is that the Tne Commandment refer to Yahew as ther source. Yahwew IS the accepted translation. "The Lord" is a substitution, in keeping with the a particular Jewish tradition of not uttering gods name. I've got many, may sources of this. Look up "Lord" in wikipedia. Look up "I am the LORD your God" in wikipedia. Look up "the names of god in judism". Look at the first few pages of any well put together bible. They all tell you the same thing. The Tetragram is the name. "LORD" or "Adonai" is a substition, relecting said tradition. I've pointed this out several times. It shouldn't be new to you. Now, YOU might not except Yahweh as a translation. Thats just to darn bad for you. Your not published. Those that are seem to prefer some variation of Yahweh as the name. And recongize "LORD" or "Adonai" as a substitution. I know you've agree, but could you at least acknolge the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"The Lord God" is how it is rendered in all the standard translations of Exodus. Stop POV-pushing. This is not the place to forward your own novel views, that violated NOR Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

rrr,,, No Slr, Slrubenstein,, not true.. NJB and WEB its rendered "I am Yahweh your God". Its true that several DO render its "I am the LORD they God", but, as I've stated and you didn't care to address, most will have translation notes, that explicitly say that the've rendered "Yahweh" in the ordinal as LORD. And this is only to reflect a RELIGOUS pratice of the early Jews. I quote from "Lord" in wikipedia...

"The earliest uses of Lord in the English language in a religious context were by English Bible translators such as Bede. This reflected the Jewish practice of substituting the spoken Hebrew word Adonai (which means 'My Lord') for YHWH when read aloud."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Kap (talk • contribs) 22:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve, you misunderstand the word "reflect". Bede's translation was incidentally similar to Jewish convention, but there is no suggestion in your quote that he did it religious reasons, rather than because the tetragrammaton is an intrinsically unclear word.. Do you really think that Bede ever met a jew in his life? Or that he would have accepted jewish religious reasons when making his translation? As to the modern bibles you quote, they do not change the fact that society at large is most familiar with 'Lord', because of the overwhelming influence of the KJV, and that is the only thing that WP cares about. Zargulon (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't split comment, it makes things confusing. I'll replay point by point:

-"Bede's translation was incidentally similar to Jewish convention" Really? Any evidence for this?

-"no suggestion in your quote that he did it religious reasons" Yes there is, it says that he "...reflected the Jewish practice"

-"you misunderstand the word "reflect". " I don't thinks so. And I'm sure it doesn't mean 'incidentally similar'.

-"Do you really think that Bede ever met a jew in his life?" I don't see the relevence. He certainly could read what the tradtions were.

-"Society at large.." Society at large once used the term "colored women" to mean house cleaner. Things change.

-"..that is the only thing WP cares about.." WP also cares about NPOV.

Steve kap (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Do you dispute that it was similar? I don't think anyone else would.

2. That proves that he didn't do it for religious reasons, since he wasn't Jewish.

3. I'm sure reflect doesn't mean 'did it for the same reasons'.

4. Really? Any evidence for this?

5. On this, they haven't changed yet, and WP is not your tool for changing them.

"WP also cares about NPOV".. but your POV is not neutral. WP also cares about WP:COMMON and WP:UNDUE. Zargulon (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I’m assuming good will, and avoid sarcasm to the extent that situation will allow. But you don’t make it easy.

1. No, I don’t dispute that it was similar. I dispute that it was “incidentally similar”.

2. It is my understanding that there are other religious groups, “Christians” for example, that have adopted certain traditions from the Jewish religions, thu admittedly not all of them.

3. Well, I think it does, in this case. People of good will could disagree on this point.

4. Do I have evidence that a person that TRANSLATED THE BIBLE might have had the ability and occasion to read about the customs of the Jewish people? Is that really the question?

5. Well, some people call this particular god “Lord”, and some don’t. It may well be that the former is in the majority. But the majority doesn’t always rule, and using “Lord” for any particular god is showing some bias toward and affinity for that particular god. Steve kap (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

1. OK.. that's what 2,3,4 and 5 are about.

2. There are some other groups, "Writers and speakers of English" for example, who have adopted certain traditions like referring to the tetragrammaton as 'Lord', despite not having religious reasons for doing so. Certain people, like Steve Kap, want to change the tradition of these groups, and good luck him. Please don't use WP to make your point though.

3. Then let's not get too hung up on the meaning of the word 'reflect', which was just what some WP editor chose to use in the Bede article.

4. Er.. yes.. Do you think Bede translated from a Hebrew bible or with the help of Jewish scholars? Where do you think he would have had the occasion to read about the post-biblical customs of the Jewish people, such as replacing the tetragrammaton with 'adonai'?

5. I think it does not. People of good will could disagree on this point.

Zargulon (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think only 2 is on subject, so thats all I'll address. I have already conceded that posibly, that the majority of English speaker may use "Lord" (although most probably would say "God"). My point, and feel free to address it, is that the use in not NPOV. In the same way, "One man, one vote" never was gender nuetral language, and therefore expressed bia. It may have been the standard, it maybe have been widely used, but it wasn't NPOV. I've made the same point several times, with several examples, but I've never heard a responce. Is it that you think that 'common useage' outweights NPOV in this case? Thats fine, but if so, please say so, and acknowlege my point, if you take my point. Please don't just repeat "lots of people use ..." or some such. I get it. I hear you. I think NPOV is more important in this case. 23:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)

Ok, regarding NPOV. NPOV is not an unqualified principle in WP. In particular, WP has the concept of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE which says that opinions held by a small or fringe minority need not be given equal weight when deciding how to write an article. This is why, for instance, we don't use simplified spellings for English words even though there is an organized movement which lobbies for simplifying spelling (e.g. writing "Steev" instead of "Steve"). Of course, Atheism or non-Monotheism is not a fringe opinion, in fact it may be that the majority of people do not subscribe to the monotheist tradition which originally led to the orthography "Lord". However, most of these people do not object to the orthography 'Lord' since it is just a historic property of the language they speak. The point of view that the orthography 'Lord' should be avoided is WP:FRINGE, and it would be improper to defer to it in writing this or any other article. Zargulon (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So, I take it from your responce that you recongize that using "Lord" in not NPOV, yes? I take this from your argument "NPOV is not an unqualified principle ". If using "Lord" was NPOV, why would such an argument be needed.

As to "The point of view that the orthography 'Lord' should be avoided is fringe" ,,,, any evidence for that? Did you take a survey? What % of people would object to "Lord" in the context? Do you in fact have any idea? Do you understand the difference between arguing the merits, and just presumming the vast majority is on your side?

And if "Lord" is the agreed standard, if any objection is "fringe", why have I never seen "Lord" used in non-religous, non-fiction writtings, outside of quoting someone? Can you infact point to another encyclopedia that uses "Lord", without quotes, to ref to the Jewish or Christian deity?Steve kap (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:MOSCAPS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents and WP:NOTAFORUM. We're going to follow the explicit guidelines here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

So, I take it from your response that you admit you are misusing the WP:NPOV guideline in order to avoid having to follow WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:BURDEN and many other WP guidelines which might interfere with your agenda?

As to your second question, I am simply going on my own experience.. I have never met any atheists who have a problem with 'Lord'. Do you have a problem with that?

You are widening the question. The question is how to render the the tetragrammaton in English. I also don't understand how the guidelines you quoted refer to this dispute.. perhaps you were just making a random list for effect? Please don't, it is a waste of time.. Zargulon (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg. I did review NOTAFORM, and, to no great suprize, it did NOT prohibit talking about what goes in the article in the TALK page. Did you think the above was about hopscotch? Steve kap (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion regarding a proposed change to the article. Do you have a specific proposal? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe you need to check your vision. SLR was suggesting the "The Lord God" to be used to ref to this particular deity. Its right there, still on this page. Thats what Z and I were arguing about before you interupted. I notice that your post of 5 August didn't have a proposal. Nor did it further the discussion. It only stated your ignorance of the relevance of the discussion. Very disruptive, really. Next time you find yourself in such a state, may I suggestion that you READ the beginning of the discussion first? Steve kap (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jay, If I may step in briefly, this thread started after my proposal above to use a partial quote in the first line of the problem sentence to sidestep the other issues. Granted, the discussion has been on a side track, but I've thrown a switch below, and if we can slow the train down a little we may be able to get it on the main track. Besides, after I added a 3rd paragraph to the intro, and your editcopy turned my ugly duckling into a swan, I re-read the 1st paragraph and realized that the part of my above proposal before the quote was redundant, having been mentioned already in the 1st paragraph. So, I need to withdraw that proposal and re-work it a little, taking into account the additional discussion since. Thanks to everyone for their patience. —Telpardec (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I from WP:MOSCAPS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents," Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized..", I noticed it didn't say WHEN to use proper nouns, or that every time a deity was ref to, it MUST be a proper noun. It seems then that this could be an editorial choice, no? Also, nothing in there to indicate whether to us "Lord" instead of "God". But thank you so much for your input, and legitimate attempt to further the discussion. Steve kap (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead currently refers to God as a proper noun, and I haven't seen any good reason to change that, other than a specific individual's personal dislike for capitalizing it. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and how did it get that way? Was it the result of consensus? I seem to remember an edit war (which, appearnely only I took part in, and, somehow lost, even without an opponent). Or is "consensus" only a requirment for opinions you don't agree with? Is that you "care about the article", is that it?

As to "..specific individual's personal dislike for capitalizing it...." Jaydj, I don't recall stating "God shouldn't be capitalized because I don't like it". Do you recall me or anyone saying that? Can you find that in the archives? Rather, and I've made this point several times now, feel free to address it, my issue was BIAS. The idea that if we just launch righ into using "God" for "Yahwey", out side a biblical context, as if everyone is a Christian or a Jew, as if there is no other deity called God, showed BIAS. And LORD even more so. Now I know that you might not argee, but can you acknowledge that this was my stated position? When you imply that my reasons are a "... personal dislike..", aren't you really just making things up?

Either way, I do encourage you to join the discussion if you have anything to add. And if you don't, or if you don't understand it, or don't understand the relevance of it, or don't understate with proposal is being forwarded or rebuffed, kindly avoid being disruptive and just stay out of it.

(and now, below, I look forward to someone admonishiming me with 'what is your specific proposal'. Note that same someone will have no proposal of his own, and will be discussing points of order, just like me) Steve kap (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Without weighing in on the issue of the above debate, it seems to be partly a continuation or offshoot of the now archived section Talk:Ten_Commandments/Archive_8#I_am_the_Lord_your_God_andnames_of_God_in_Judaism, and partly some things from other threads, and I had trouble figuring out where those things were heading. We need some sort of closure here.
I have re-attached my temporary {{reflist|close=1}} to the comment further up with the references and moved one out of chronological order message to where it fits. And I would like to revisit something in the first message that followed my suggestion of using a partial quote. See my next paragraph. (All paragraphs signed if anyone needs to insert a reply after any one of them.) —Telpardec (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To Steve, In response to my proposal above to use a partial quote for the first line of the problem sentence, your first response of three was:

I like it, using the quotes. We could also hyperlink the "I am the lord they (your) God" to the ariticle of the same name.

Your core idea there has possibilities, but it is generally not a good idea to wiki-link words within quotations though. However, I noticed in the Main points of interpretative difference section, there are 4 of the commandments that have main articles elsewhere, so I think it would be a good idea to have something like that for the I am the Lord your God article, or at least a link in the See also section. (Note the 14th item added in the To do list.) Would you like to take a stab at writing a (maybe 3 to 5 sentence) summary of that page to be added as a subsection here? (Without objection from anyone, since we get to sharpen our slice and dice editing tools to "improve" it when it appears, right? :) —Telpardec (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

To Zargulon and Steve, and anyone else: I had added another reply to the Unique aspects of the Sinaitic Revelation section presently at the top of the page that delayed it's archival because I referenced it in another section, but that need is past. May I go ahead and archive it, or does anyone want to work on that idea some more? —Telpardec (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There is still one thing we need to consider that Steve mentioned in regard to a lack in the article's The Revelation at Sinai section:

As it stands, it talks about the 1 set of stones, the 2nd set of stones, but not the 'spoken to the people' part. Which I believe is what is ref to a mass revelation.

There seems to still be a need for something in that regard in that section. —Telpardec (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So, once again, it is clear that "Lord" is NOT presented as the NAME of the particular god. Its a substitute. Of course it is NOT Wikipedias place to reflect those religous practices, any more that we should say "peace be upon him" every time Mohummad is mentioned. Could you please address these points? Or are you on IDIDNOTHEARTHAT mode.

As to "POV pushing", of course people of good will disagree sometimes. Its doesn't mean that one is "POV pushing" any more that the other is. Please stop your whining and stick to reasoned arguements. Steve kap (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, the idea that the Jewish sky god is called "Yahwey" is not at all "novel" as you stated, and it didn't start with me. I find it rather odd that you would think so. Steve kap (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to add a note on all the above -- the reason that older English translations used "Lord" is that they were primarily derived from the Vulgate and the Septuagint, both strongly influenced by the Jewish viewpoints and practice of their times, which used "Dominus" and "Kurios" respectively. But the Hebrew itself says YHWH, as a number of more recent translations reflect.

Here we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not a religious work; and it does our readers a greater service to reflect what the original text actually says: "I am YHWH your God". Substituting "Lord" removes something important from the full understanding of the content of the text that we should be seeking to convey. Jheald (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting assertion, but quite against the consensus of views and arguments expressed on this topic previously. Please review the previous discussions to better understand why. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now looked at the previous discussion, if that's the one you're referring to, and quite frankly the arguments presented seem remarkably feeble -- that YHWH should not be used because it is unfamiliar, or not the most commonly-used English translation.

The name YHWH is understood to have historically fallen out of spoken use during the Exilic period, when the specificity of the name became an embarrassment to a community that now wanted its God to be more abstract and universalist. That is when the circumlocutions like "Lord" became standard. But it is not Wikipedia's job to be bound to such obfustications. The specificity of the original use, YHWH, is an important part of the story, and therefore something we should present.

As to the claim that it's unfamiliar, well it's our job to present the unfamiliar and to extend readers' knowledge and understanding, not to shy away from that. That should be our guiding light here.

Finally, as to the assertion that some binding consensus has been achieved, in the first place consensus can change; but in the second place, I don't actually see a strong consensus one way or another in that previous discussion -- the numbers taking a view were actually remarkably balanced, though some appear to have had more time on their hands to repeat the same rather limited position over and over again. Jheald (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

JHeald, no-one is suggesting that the English 'YHWH' should not be presented at all in a discussion of the name of God. Rather the question was how the Hebrew tetragrammaton should be rendered in the summary of the commandments which is to go in the first paragraph. I think you can appreciate that would be better served by simply using the rendition which people are most familiar with, in order not to distract from the rest of the summary. The Hebrew bible is not intrinsically more important than the Vulgate, Greek translations or the KJV, and "Ten Commandments" refers to the texts in all of these bibles just as much as to the Hebrew one. Whatever the reasons that the tetragrammaton became kurios/dominus/Lord, Lord is at the moment the most familiar rendition of the tetragrammaton, not just in the bible but in the massive corpus of literary, philosophical and historical writings which draw on the KJV and on earlier translations of the ten commandments, whether the context in which these are read is religious, or otherwise. Lord is of course not the only rendition of the tetragrammaton, and the others should be presented with due weight and certainly not repressed. But not in this particular sentence in the lead of this article. Zargulon (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that this particular religon named their god IS intrinsically important. Maybe the lede is not the place, but somewhere, maybe. As to "quite against the consensus", I think its important to see the difference between "against the consensus" and "views I disagree with". Steve kap (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

STRICKEN text was removed from article. Anyone have secondary sources for such? —Telpardec (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Jewish sources assume that the Torah had a single author and represents a coherent narrative. According to traditional sources, Exodus 20 represents God's first inscription of the ten commandments. Most importantly, an entire corpus of law is revealed to Moses and the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai and during their wanderings in the desert. Therefore, the children of Israel already possess this law when all the tribes enter the land of Canaan together, forming a loose tribal alliance, until the formation of a kingdom around 1,000 BCE.

<According to the critical historical approach, particularly higher criticism, duplications in the narrative are important evidence of multiple authorship. Critical scholars debate whether all Israelite tribes were enslaved in Egypt, or whether the tribal alliance was formed by tribes of diverse origins. They also propose that the Torah was not redacted into a unified text until the time of the Babylonian exile in 569 BCE. Therefore, different portions of the law entered Israelite culture at different times.

Critical scholarship is divided over their interpretation of these texts. The classic form of higher criticism was Julius Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis, first published in 1878. Wellhausen argued that the Torah contains within it three strata of law that were composed at three distinct periods in the history of Israel: a Jahwist/Elohist stratum (following the names used for God; the Jahwist is generally associated with the Kingdom of Judah and the Elohist with the Kingdom of Israel) from a time when there were multiple sanctuaries and altars and little distinction between laity and clergy; a Deuteronomist source composed at the court of King Josiah (649-609 BCE), when the authority of the Temple as the sole site for sacrifice was first definitively established; and a Priestly stratum composed at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, who led Jews out of the Babylonian Exile mid-fifth century BCE, which reflects the dominance of the Temple and priesthood in the absence of the monarchy. According to this scheme, Exodus 20-23 and 34 were composed by the Jehovist and "might be regarded as the document which formed the starting point of the religious history of Israel."^[1] Deuteronomy 5 would then reflect Josiah's attempt to link the document produced by his court to the older Mosaic tradition. In the decades following Wellhausen, many historians sought to refine the documentary hypothesis, for example by identifying different strands of Jahwist or Elohist sources. The argument was always that Israelite religion progressed from less to more ritually complex, and less to more legalistic. Dating a text first required determining how ritualistic or legalistic it was.

Early critical historians also identified another trend in the progression of religions, namely that from a concern with ritual to a concern with ethics. Thus, the early Hebrews were concerned with sacrifice, and later prophets such as Amos and Micah were more concerned with ethics; this trend presaged Jesus's emphasis on love. According to this scheme, Deuteronomy 5 does not represent Josiah's attempt to identify himself with the Mosaic tradition; rather, Exodus 20: 2-17 are an interpolation of the Deuteronomic Decalogue into the Jawhist narrative. The argument is that this form of the Ten Commandments, which emphasize ethical principals, can only be a late development in the history of Israelite religion. These scholars proposed that Exodus 34: 10-28 represent the original ten commandments believed to be revealed to Moses at Mt. Sinai and of very early origin, because of their emphasis on ritual.

The modern documentary hypothesis, although considered by some to be "disproven" is argued by Richard Elliott Friedman to be based on seven main arguments ^[2] Linguistic analysis, uses of particular terminology, consistent content, continuity of text narrative, connections with other parts of the Bible, relationships among the sources to each other and history, and the convergence of all the evidence when the Bible is analysed in this way. Friedman lists the sources as J for Jahwe from Judah, E for El from northern Israel, a redactor, an early Priest source, a later priest source called Deuteronomy from the reign of Josiah and a later redactor.

In a recent analysis of this history of this position, Dr. Bernard Levinson has argued that this reconstruction assumes a Christian perspective, and dates back to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's polemic against Judaism. Goethe claimed that Christianity is more advanced than Judaism because Christianity is a more ethical religion. He believed that religions evolve from the more ritualistic to the more ethical, and that one could find evidence of this evolution in the history of Israelite religion (just as Christianity evolved from the ritualistic Catholic form to the more purely ethical Protestant form). Goethe thus argued that the ten commandments revealed to Moses at Mt. Sinai would have emphasized rituals, and that the "ethical" Decalogue Christians recite in their own churches was composed at a later date, when Israelite prophets had begun to prophesize the coming of the messiah, Jesus Christ. Dr. Levinson points out that there is no evidence, internal to the Hebrew Bible or in external sources, to support this conjecture. He concludes that its vogue among later critical historians represents the persistance of this polemic that the supercession of Judaism by Christianity is part of a longer history of progress from the ritualistic to the ethical.^[3]

By the 1930s, however, historians who accepted the basic premises of multiple authorship had come to reject the idea of an orderly evolution of Israelite religion. Critics instead began to suppose that law and ritual could be of equal importance, while taking different form, at different times. This means that there is no longer any a priori reason to believe that Exodus 20: 2-17 and Exodus 34: 10-28 were composed during different stages of Israelite history. For example, critical historian John Bright also dates the Jahwist texts to the tenth century BCE, but believes that they express a theology that "had already been normalized in the period of the Judges" (i.e. of the tribal alliance).^[4] He concurs about the importance of the decalogue as "a central feature in the covenant that brought together Israel into being as a people"^[5] but views the parallels between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, along with other evidence, as reason to believe that it is relatively close to its original form and Mosaic in origin.^[6]

According to Bright, however, there is an important distinction between the Decalogue and the "Book of the Covenant" (Exodus 21-23 and 34:10–24). The Decalogue, he argues, was modeled on the suzerainty treaties of the Hittites (and other Mesopotamian Empires), that is, represents the relationship between God and Israel as a relationship between king and vassal, and enacts that bond.^[7] Viewed as a treaty rather than a law code, its purpose is not so much to regulate human affairs as to define the scope of the king's power.^[8] Julius Morgenstern argued that Exodus 34 is distinct from the Jahwist document, identifying it with king Asa's reforms in 899 BCE.^[9] Bright, however, believes that like the Decalogue this text has its origins in the time of the tribal alliance. The Book of the Covenant, he notes, bears a greater similarity to Mesopotamian law codes (e.g. the Code of Hamurabi). He argues that the function of this "book" is to move from the realm of treaty to the realm of law: "The Book of the Covenant (Ex., chs. 21 to 23; cf. ch. 34), which is no official state law, but a description of normative Israelite judicial procedure in the days of the Judges, is the best example of this process."^[10] According to Bright, then, this body of law too predates the monarchy.^[11]

According to critical scholar Yehezkel Kaufmann, the Decalogue and the Book of the Covenant represent two ways of manifesting God's presence in Israel: the Ten Commandments taking the archaic and material form of stone tablets kept in the ark of the covenant, while the book of the covenant took oral form to be recited to the people (Kaufmann dates the book of the covenant to the time of Josiah).^[12] (Exodus 25-31 describe the plans for the construction of the ark of the covenant, a tabernacle in which the ark will be sheltered, an altar, and the establishment of a priesthood to supervise sacrifices.)

Please <S>Strike</S> the items that are completed or rejected. Anyone that wants to work on any of the items, simply add an "I'm working on this.[signature]" comment immediately below the enumerated item with 2 colons(::) indent, and start a separate section for updates on progress report(s) where others may assist with suggestions. Telpardec (talk))

1. Make To do list. 16:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Critical historical analysis – That section still needs editcopy and more focused on 10C, as opposed to general history. —Telpardec (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Apparently complete for now. Telpardec (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

3. In the Two texts of the Ten Commandments section, there are dividing lines that reflect only one POV of the 4 numbering systems in the table in the Division according to different religions section. Anyone know why that was done?
reworked tables Telpardec (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

4. In the Catholic and Lutheran Christianity section, the first line mentions both have the same numbering divisions, but the main tag and the article seem to be referring mainly to Catholic catechism POV, with yet another complete copy of the NSRV verses. And then one sentence for the "Lutheran understanding" with two external links. And then an OR paragraph. Should the section be renamed Catholic, and the Lutheran part moved to the next section with other Lutheran stuff and the EL encoded in footnotes? Should all the repeat verses and catechism that duplicates material in the main article be removed or merged there, with a 2 or 3 sentence summary remaining?
Complete. Reduced and summarized. Lutheran part to separate section. Telpardec (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

5. Protestantism. Needs expansion. Protestant Christianity section citations and footnotes.
Unsourced material removed. Telpardec (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

6. Typical Protestant view – Typical according to what authority?
Unsourced material removed. Telpardec (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

7. The Killing or murder section has had an OR tag since March 2009. There is a main article associated with it, can it be summarized with 2 or 3 sentences? completed —Telpardec (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

8. The Idolatry section has been tagged since February 2010. There are main articles associated with it, can it be summarized with 3 or 4 sentences?

9. Any new information on U.S. debate over display of 10C on public property?

10. Does the References section still need a citations tag? No.

11. According to the top of the talk page, this article is part of 5 projects? Any editors here from any of the projects have any concerns? Does someone know how to contact the projects?

12. Any editors fluent in other languages besides English want to check other language versions of this article to see if they have some better ideas? (Are we allowed to cheat? :)

13. Accessibility concerns. See WP:ACCESS. Does any editor have a Screen reader to check if the tables are understandable? In the table with Ex.20 beside Deut.5, the two sides directly compare, but the "Division according to different religions" table has some awkward rowspans. Do we need something like ALT text for that table? There is no alt text for the picture in the "Reference by Jesus" section – likewise the picture in the "Protestant Christianity" section – also the picture in the intro/lead. Any other concerns?
Alt text added to images. —Telpardec (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
completed Telpardec (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

14. Any other off shoots of the 10C article that need a main mention here or a See also? —Telpardec (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a little concerned by the dichotomy that seems to be set up between "faith groups" and "modern critical historians".

It is perhaps worth reflecting that fundamentalism -- the notion that what is recorded in the book of Exodus is a faithful near-contemporaneous historical recounting of events that actually happened at Mount Sinai in the place and period described -- is very much a minority viewpoint, both in world Christianity and world Judaism.

For a more characteristic Reform Judaism line, see for example the book we cite from the professor of Hebrew Bible and History of Interpretation at HUC (synopsis), and you would also find something very similar taught at most Protestant and Catholic theological colleges.

Rather than there being a division between "faith groups" and "modern critical historians", a majority of world Christianity and world Judaism sees itself as entirely compatible with the fruits of the last two centuries of academic bible analysis. Jheald (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see Faith groups opposite Modern critical historians? The third paragraph is the only place where the generic term "Faith groups" appears and only notes that there is some difference among those groups "on the interpretation and numbering of the Ten Commandments".

The second part of that sentence has "modern critical historians" versus "traditional views" on their authorship.

I don't see any mention of fundamentalism. Could you please direct my attention to the part or parts of the article that you would like to see changed? Thanks. —Telpardec (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It was my sense of the construction of the entire article. You may be right that it may not be explicit, and may not be intentional. But it certainly seemed to me that scholarly views were being placed in a very separate box to faith views; and the wording "modern critical historians" or "critical historians' interpretations" seems further to marginalise them -- as if almost to suggest that such views are only current amongst a few historians, and then only those who are "critical". I don't think that impression serves our readership well. (And yes, I am aware that "critical" may well have been intended in its scholarly sense, rather than its common meaning -- but that might still be the nuance that a casual reader might pick up, I think).

So how to integrate this material better? (It could also use more thorough surveying -- the present choice of authorities, particularly for the modern period, is disproportionate haphazard and superficial; and the whole section reads unfortunately like someone's personal essay). One thing to do might be to have more of a discussion about the historical development of the material sooner, rather than to leave it as it appears at the moment like a marginal fringe afterthought. Another might be to come up with a more inclusive term than "modern critical historians". This is after all an issue that cuts across all faith groups, and is mainstream teaching in most theological programmes. Jheald (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jheald, I agree with you in that many religious people are influenced by critical historical studies, and without doubt some critical historians are religious. I think the mistake is referring to the people 'Faith groups/critical historians', which intrinsically introduces the false dichotomy - it would be better to refer to the concepts 'Religion/Ethics/Critical history' or some such. Zargulon (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"Modern critical historians" is the only outpost of reasonable thinking and it is too narrowly defined as a topic.

Exodus and Ten Commandments are clearly a myth, just as King Arthur or Beowulf. 40 years in the wilderness is a myth, 250,000 people in an inhospitable environment where they wouldn't last 1 week. Whether there was or was not an actual historical basis to the myth is interesting in itself. But the problem is that this "contract with God" is highly charged politically. I'm not interested in the politics, just the ideas and getting to something like the truth.

Exodus as a book is a hodgepodge of bad editing, but from these fragments we can see much in the sense that they didn't gloss it over with an edit that would make it impossible to get the original.

"Modern critical historians" needs to be more broadly defined as "secular interpretations". I do agree that the theories about the evolution of the Bible toward a Christian context are irrelevant here and better deleted. Lets just keep it to archaeological fact, linguistic analysis of sources, and relevant related ideas such as the interrelation of Egyptian and Mesopotamian ideas.

Drg55 (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think there is no point discussing your personal opinion about whether the events at Mount Sinai were historical or mythical, and about the editing of the book of Exodus.

What we need for this paragraph to work is a bunch of secondary sources. They are not that easy to find in comparative theology, but it would help. Because otherwise we'll end up simply juxtaposing people's personal opinions. JFW | T@lk 05:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed Drg, I think you should be more specific about desired changes to the article. Zargulon (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou. I had a look at the reference from Jheald: http://huc.edu/chronicle/68/articles/EtchedInStone.pdf and this suggests that the text was written in the post exilic period. This is apparently a conservative academic view. Setting stories in different time periods was common practice in the ancient world. The story of Daniel is set in Babylon when it was written in Greek times. (I majored in biblical Archaeology, this is what I remember from class 35 years ago)

The matter of "myth" is important. Myth is not falsehood, it is an allegory for truth. Myths are fundamental to a culture. The introductory section The Revelation at Sinai needs some modification to take the fundamentalism out of it as it sets the tone for the whole article. To describe Exodus as a myth is not to put the boot into people's beliefs but to put it in its right context and also is consistent with all the evidence anyway.

The section just deals with an analysis of the nature of laws. "The Bible with Sources Revealed" by Richard Elliott Friedman gives the Documentary Hypothesis in a more modern form and suggests that the Priest source was actually early Jerusalem period. In the introduction to his book he lists these sources in sequence as JHWH - Southern Israel, El - Northern Israel, RJE - the redactor of these two main sources, Priest - early Jerusalem period, Deuteronomy - Josiah period, a second Dtr2 - exilic period, and a final Redactor who put the lot together.

Put simply the linguistic analysis enables identification of the history of the language, in the way we would clearly differentiate Shakespearean english, Times Literary Supplement, Harlem rap (just for purposes of example). Also the use of certain stock phrases and vocabulary etc. This is apparently still controversial with some but it is pretty obvious particularly when you see the placement of the J & E and sometimes P versions next to each other, repetitive but a little different and sometimes contradictory on details. Clearly the event has great importance for the Priest source as it really is the beginnings of the priest class and so it is possible that some of the narrative is invented after the event to give an apriori context for the priestly role, an "origin" that is completely rooted in this central myth.

Friedman gives you the Pentateuch in different type styles according to the sources. The Exodus 20 version is attributed by Friedman to the Priest source, while the Exodus 34 section to the YHWH source. The second longer version (Ex 34) is obviously the original source, I particularly admire the elegance of the editing of the Priest source, the use of language is absolutely terrific. Another clue to this section might be reference to the Hittite in the previous verses which sets it in a definite historical period. Therefore without being fully on top of all the scholarship today, I would rather tend to believe that it was an early story with some historical basis, whether it was just a morality tale that took on a life of its own or a legend which built up over a verbal history period before being written down. We know for sure that numbers were also modified in the ancient world to give a story a bit of a brush up, so the number 40 has a certain ring or perfection to it, and also just as King Arthur probably lived in a mud hut but is always portrayed as having a Norman castle.

Anyhow I am not sure how this fits with the "Etched in stone" post exilic hypothesis. Perhaps both can be included in the section.

In summary this section is a little too on the academic side and might lose the average reader. It needs cutting down and broadening out. There is a reference to the Hamurabbi connection but this is too academic. I don't see what's wrong with putting in my original idea that the Hamurabbi stelae might have some influence on the use of "tablets of stone" for the ten commandments if given with a reference. Why not goat skins? http://www.specialtyinterests.net/codexhammurabi.html shows a good comparison but the source would have been from Hamurabbi not the other way around.

Drg55 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to provide all relevant views. We can lump critical views in one section for editorial reasons, but Drg55 is quite wrong to suggest that modern methods enable us to date or interpret Biblical texts with any certainty, this is why people still (i.e. 35 years after Drg55 went to school) still get PhDs in history or Ancient Near Eastern or Jewish Studies. People have moved beyond Wellhausen and even that project. What we really need is someone who has the time to go to the library and look at the Anchor Bible Exodus, which will still be out of date but nevertheless show the best critical scholarship thirty years ago and might show that there are more significant interpretations than we currently represent in this article. Then, someone to go through the major peer-reviewed journals and see what has been published in the past twenty years. Yes, Drg55, I too went to university and I know what a "myth" is but I also know that current scholarship goes far bewyond Drg55s opinions. And no, rg55, we will not add your original research into the article.

That someone would put down any content in an encyclopedia as "too academic" is just beyond me. The reason we have what we have about Hammurabi is because that is what a leading scholar says. Yes, we need more academic sources for this article. Nor Drg55s fictions. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Drg55, if you have a ref, its not orignal research. But if the ref just leads you to an opinion, the opinion it is original reserach and is not appropriate for WP. I don't know what the case is here. SLR, you ref to Drg55s "fictions", are you the arbitor of whats fact and whats fiction? As to “Drg55… suggest(s) that modern methods enable us to date or interpret Biblical texts with any certainty”… I don’t think certainty is the gold standard here, I think it’s the preponderance of the opinion of educated people that study the matter in question. And, in bible history, it sure does seem like Drg55 knows what he’s talking about, what those opinions are. Steve kap (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

kap, make up your mind who you are disagreeing with here. It was Drg55 who suggested that certainty is the standard. Rephrasing it as "the preponderance of opinion" still gets it wrong - it is an attempt to hide under the rug the diversity of views among modern scholars. Drg55 admits his knowledge is about 35 years out of date. His presentation of Friedman's views show that - Friedman is summarizing what was the leading view around the 1950s or 1960s. To the extent that these views are found in reliable sources, I already put them into the article. My point remains true: Biblical scholarship has moved on quite a bit from Wellhausen's model, and from his project. Most Bible Scholars no longer believe that the reconstruction presented in Friedman is historically sound because it depends on a notion of "authorship" that is anachronistic. If you do not know this, then you do not know what you are talking about. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You betray yourself SLR. In honest discourse, people address issues. So one might disagree with one thing a person says, even if he generally supports that persons views. It is only in partisan bickering that one "makes up his mind" about who to agree with, and disagree with. Steve kap (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

SLR what people are looking for in Wikipedia is a good general article. Thus to go too far down a narrow academic path, you might as well write a book. I think it is possible to allude to information that gets people thinking without saying it is fact. There are various scientific approaches to the Bible, archaeology, text criticism, linguistics, comparitive history. This section is quite good but needs editing down and broadening out.

Your ad hominem comments about me are a little arrogant. Are you a professor of Archaeology or Biblical Studies? I don't think you are an authority. The work I cited is from an authority, Richard Elliott Friedman, and is published in 2005. Friedman comments that some think the documentary hypothesis is old hat, but says he doesn't see any evidence for it. Nor do I, it is clearly obvious to all that do not have a fixed view in the Divine authorship of the Bible.

There are of course Orthodox Jews who are bent on a very political course, Israeli settlement, in view of their idea that Mossiach (end of the world) is coming. I'm pretty tolerant and generally judge people not beliefs, but those that want the world to end are a bit scary. Most of the political chaos in the Middle East can be traced to this group, the Christians in the US that back them, and even the nut in Iran who believes in his own end times. If only it was a personal end, but they want to take us with them. Of course they all base it on the Bible so they don't want questions raised about it. Do these people control this Wikipedia page?

What the hell do you mean by "a notion of 'authorship' that is anachronistic"? Call me old fashioned but I believe that ideas have a source.

What Wikipedia needs is facts and argument. That certain schools of thought take over Universities is meaningless, as we see with the current wreck of world economies thanks to the economic rationalists. There are always various schools of thought that go in and out of fashion, ideas should be freely expressed.Drg55 (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"all that do not have a fixed view in the Divine authorship of the Bible." "There are of course Orthodox Jews who are bent on a very political course, Israeli settlement, in view of their idea that Mossiach (end of the world) is coming." What are you talking about? You must be responding to someone else, obviously not responding to my comments. But don't spout your hypocritical claim that "ideas should be freely expressed" when you want to take sourced academic views out of the article. On the talk page you can express freely ideas about how to improve the article but proposing to add you own original research while deleting academic views is a non-starter. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein,

Same pattern of behaviour "don't spout your hypocritical claim" - you should not be an admin on Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If you think SLR has violated WP:NPA, why don't you say so rather than making a fuss about this admin status? I think I agree with SLR that Drg55 was away on a tangent there. It would be helpful if we agreed whether to include recent academic perspectives (rather than just the documentary hypothesis). Drg55 may also not be aware that SLR does indeed have an academic background in exactly these subjects. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I have put in a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article on the code of Hammurabi, to the pre-existing mention and correcting the spelling of it. I have made a neutral connection that the code of Hammurabi was inscribed on stone stele, fact, without ascribing any theory to that. I have put in a paragraph that gives the fuller version of the documentary hypothesis, rather than just an analysis of the type of laws it is much wider than that, and the reference from Richard Elliott Friedman "The Bible with Sources Revealed" which has a lengthy introduction giving these arguments. I hope it will be seen that these edits are quite reasonable.Drg55 (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, well, we all seem to be agreed that the Critical historical analysis section needs improvement. I have removed the obviously unsourced material and added 4th edition web sources to the late John Bright's 2nd edition material. (Pages are about 4 numbers higher.)

• I agree with Jheald's 09:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC) comment: "It could also use more thorough surveying -- the present choice of authorities, particularly for the modern period, is disproportionate haphazard and superficial; and the whole section reads unfortunately like someone's personal essay."
• I agree with Zargulon's 03:13, 11 August 2011 revision of the article section title to: "Critical historical analysis"
• I agree with Drg55's 04:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC) (and 09:55, 13 August 2011) comment that some things need "cutting down" ("editing down") "and broadening out."

—Telpardec (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would take out the paragraph about Goethe. Contrary to what SLR might think of me, I regard this paragraph as offensive to Jews and unnecessary. The following discussion of dates could be rather brutally edited down with a bit of direct prose, its a matter of speaking directly to the reader rather than getting too deeply into a discussion of differing academics ideas. I've done a bit of writing for the media, an editor would just say "too many words". Nevertheless it is interesting and should be retained, but condensed to the main points.

What I have been trying to suggest is that the Myth of the Exodus developed over some time. The fact that there is a J and an E source for it means it is old, unlike theories that it was actually written in the 7 century BCE. ("The Bible Unearthed" 2002 by Finkelstein and Silberman Ch 2) And bearing in mind that there was possibly a verbal legend for some time before it was transcribed, but that certain points might have been added in when it was redacted. I was thinking recently the idea of the Sabbath must date to agricultural settlement and urban times, it would be impractical for the Patriarchs with their flocks. Other points might be made about the actual content of the Ten Commandments and the society of the time, prohibitions suggest common conduct. There is undoubtedly a mixture of epochs with modern (at the time) problems being mixed with older "golden age" contexts and the basic legend.

Does this code really cover all moral ground? It certainly has a power and resonance that has carried it through the ages. In particular the prohibitions against other gods might be discussed as it is one of the most important issues here, that might date to the reign of Josiah as he tortured to death the priests of other religions. The Persians for instance were religiously tolerant, others were not. Religious tolerance has been an issue for various groups that took this book for their own through history at various times as well. There are quite a few philosophers in Greek and Roman times (and eastern philosophies) who might have a code that could be put against the ten commandments for the purposes of comparison.

It might be possible to briefly allude to some of these ideas with a few references.Drg55 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the paragraph on the development of Goethe et al's view of the Ten Commandments, since it's entirely relevant. Also, this article is about the Ten Commandments, not the Exodus, so please ensure you add material about the former, not the latter. Regarding your personal views of the Ten Commandments, please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments but I really don't know where you are coming from. The 10C are the pinnacle event of the exodus, you are splitting hairs to say a quote about the facts of the exodus is not a quote about 10C. The events of the 10C include a large body of people living in the desert for 40 years (a mythic perfect number which is used multiple times in the Bible, which should tell you something) only being kept alive by manna from heaven in an environment which would kill you in days. Exodus 12:37, 600,000 men, not counting infants, plus big herds of sheep and livestock. They build a Golden calf, Ex 32:4, would require smelters. This is the context in which Moses presents 10C its part of the story of running a big guilt trip on people to enforce the 10C on them. But there's no evidence for it, I gave the reference.

If you mean discussing whether other moral codes should be put alongside 10C, isn't that exactly what the paragraph you have put back in does? I cut it out because it was wordy, it related to an obsolete point of view and there is not much point disproving an obsolete point of view unless you are an academic, and that's the empty sort of games they play. This section which SLR apparently wrote, is far from a broad summary of different viewpoints on 10C in an article which appears otherwise very faith based. SLR's section should be a separate article in Wikipedia if it is to go to such length because it becomes more a discussion about the documentary hypothesis than 10C.

Actually to suggest a Hittite suzerainty treaty model for 10C is to suggest a date for it contemporary to that around 1400-1100 BCE, does SLR want to put that in? However God wrote the 10C himself (Ex 34:1) on the stone tablets presumably in Paleo-Hebrew alphabet which wasn't invented until 1000 BCE and is based on Phoenecian. Prior to that this culture had a verbal history which usually has strong rules of trusted people learning it by rote and not varying it. Nevertheless the early Hebrews were probably literate in cuniform, the international script of the time. The fact that they took their writing from the Phoenecians suggests that a lot of the positive multicultural aspects of the time have been edited out of the Bible altogether. Let alone the practice of circumcision was picked up from the Egyptians who got it from Africa, or the Mesopotamian myths such as Noah which came from the epic of Gilgamesh. Anyhow the fact that God "wrote" it gives a date of sorts later than the Hittite empire.

Or you might agree that this was an overlay added in later on, but then you would be agreeing with me.

I admit I was spinning out ideas of the development of the myth, hoping that it would lead others to put some references, but I did this myself in the end. Finkelstein and Silberman conclude in the reference I gave: while they date the final version of the story quite late (considering its usually dated the previous millenium) they also state, "To pin this biblical image down to a single date is to betray the story's deepest meaning" (IBID p71).

I don't see why I am getting resistance on a personal level to ideas, but these Myths are the cornerstone of modern Israel as well as broader society. Nevertheless I think we are making progress of sorts.Drg55 (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg that this article should not stray from the 10 commandments into a wider discussion of Exodus, and my friendly advice is not to take that personally. Zargulon (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is about the Ten Commandments, not The Exodus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Thank you for your help. I have put some dates in the final paragraph. On my "to do" list is to take apart Exodus into its separate streams which I already did for Genesis. In scholarship it is always best to go back to original sources and experience has told me not to trust the statements of even great commentators without checking it out directly. First impression is that there is no mention of 10C in the E source, although plenty about the exodus myth.Drg55 (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your latest edits, please stop editing the article solely for the purpose of adding links to the Exodus. Also, please don't state POVs as facts using Wikipedia's voice, and please don't use "IBID" in footnotes. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever had an original idea in your life? I don't think so. The statement that God inscribed the tablets dates the story. But its not a POV but an obvious fact even if I am the first to state it. This section has been edited down and now has some coherency but I think we are back to square one in regards to a faith based article that states as facts things that are clearly historical alterations, and a small section that makes sure it doesn't go out of its way to shed any truth on the whole picture. Part of that picture is your determination to keep out broader facts such as archaeology.Drg55 (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are not the place to promulgate original ideas. This amounts to original research. If you want to publish your ideas, please submit them to a peer-reviewed scientific journal in this field of study.

With regards to adding content about archaeology, we can only discuss archaeological data that is directly pertinent to the Ten Commandments (as opposed to the Exodus as a whole, which is what you seem to be doing).

"Have you ever had an original idea in your life?" seems to be a thinly veiled personal attack; this is not helpful, and it would help if you moderated your language. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that is its strength, however Jayjg is abusing his admin status to keep this article to his framework. Facts are not personal ideas. The correct way to write articles for Wikipedia is to keep them factual, let people draw their own conclusions. It is a fact that Israelites had to have had writing before you can have tablets inscribed with 10C. I could have said "If God was perfect (following medieval theological discussions) then he would have written 10C in the international language of the time cuniform, ...or even English".

Interpretations of facts are POVs. While I may have floated some general ideas in discussion in the hope that others could contribute some references on this, this is not what I wrote in the article. Jayjg is using Wikipedia to state his POV with Wikipedia's voice. The archaeological evidence is clear that there is no evidence for the events at Mt Sinai as stated in the Bible. Fact. Only fundamentalists would consider these stories to be true, reference the comments of Jheald at the top of this discussion. The section "Revelation on Mt Sinai" refers to the "Exodus from Egypt", first paragraph. If you are being consistent, why didn't you cut that out?Drg55 (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't need to explain to us what the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia are. You are also incorrect that by editing an article another editor is somehow "abusing his adminstrator status". The only way to do that is by protecting an article or blocking another editor, neither of which apply here.

With regards to your most recent edit, this should be rephrased without the direct quote, because its phrasing is pretty loaded. I don't think that is an unreasonable request. I don't dispute the fact that the absence of an archeological record might need mention. JFW | T@lk 05:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, which direction do you see this going in? I do not set out to be deliberately offensive to people's views but nor do I want to compromise on what the evidence shows. Should I go with: "Archaeology has so far been unable to find evidence to support the presence of Israelis in the Sinai as described in this story, despite intensive exploration." or "There has been a lack of archaeological evidence to corroborate this part of the story suggesting that the story might have evolved over time or simply not happened at all."Drg55 (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Both seem reasonable reflections of the source, without the veiled antireligious undertones of the authors' original phrasing. JFW | T@lk 05:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

These both have problems. The first option would be acceptable if you deleted "as described in this story", since the story doesn't pinpoint its 'Sinai' geographically. Also change 'Israelis' to 'Israelites' of course. The second option is pretty much impossible.. it is too pointy to be fixed. Zargulon (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that the second pointed at all. Seem like it simply presents the state of the evidence, as we know it. Steve kap (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What if we used option 1, and just change "story" to "narrative". A bit of a compromise, but not inaccurate or missleading, I'd say. Steve kap (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope- that is not a compromise. Using "narrative" doesn't address the problem. There is nothing wrong with the word "story" anyway, in itself, as far as I am concerned. But no-one knows if the modern "Sinai" where they looked for remains is the "Sinai" referred to in the bible, or if the place referred to in the bible is even supposed to exist. The modern "Sinai" was named relatively recently an the name is not based on a provable correspondence with the Exodus location. Remove "as described in the story" and option 1 is ok. Zargulon (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I dropped the "as described in the story" from option 1 and also added in "although this location is disputed" in respect to Mt Sinai, which I think is just continuing down the path you requested. I put a final sentence that says some of option two expressed as subtly as possible but is fair to points of view expressed by Zargulon and JFW. I put back in the link to the golden calf article which I think is important but does involve a slight change of wording to get it in. I think a critical analysis of the Bible makes it more interesting, but as you point out there are complexities even here. If it makes you feel any better - similar to this, there is no historical evidence for Jesus either and although its just my POV the reliability of the Gospels is quite low having been written several generations after the events, and subsequent to the turmoil of the destruction of Jerusalem (but not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are also very interesting elements, critical analysis should not be seen as just a destructive exercise). Popular items such as "the three wise men" I think were simply inserted into the narrative to impress Zoroastrians who believed a messiah would be foretold by the stars. Its arguable from an analysis of the text, in that it is just a cameo appearance, why don't they appear later in the story, why don't they help Jesus when he needs it? Its probably the most popular part of the myth yet it only appears in one Gospel. People have a right to their myths, true or not, and one has to tread carefully.

So choosing our words well is fine considering sensibilities. Thank you for coming together on this and I hope we are getting closer to a consensus.Drg55 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Drg, you seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of titanic struggle going on here between people who think that the bible is literally true (who 'have a right to their myths' and whose 'sensibilities' need to be 'considered') and rationalists/skeptics like yourself who believe in historiography. Nothing could be further from the case. Wikipedia does not have to consider anyone's sentiments. It just has to be encyclopedic, and follow its own policies and guidelines. The main relevant ones here are WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR. In particular please be careful that you include only material which is specifically related to the ten commandments, and that you accurately report what the sources say without adding your own interpretations or drawing your own conclusions. Zargulon (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Drg, please review Zargulon's comment above, and my own comment of 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC). Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I’m unclear what specific changes you are proposing by the above comments. Please review NOT A FORUM. Steve kap (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trolling, Steve kap. Specific edits are being discussed. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A thousand apologies. Both your post and Jays added so much to the conversation, sorry to interrupt.

In defense of Drg55, if he did come across as believing that there was some sort of struggle between biblical literalist and others, I can see where he got that impression. Maybe it’s because the same editors seems to object to any ref to the text as “myth”, any inconsistency pointed out, any criticism of the 10C, any suggestion that these stories never happened. And, that the same people would object to using the name of god, which just so happens to be a taboo in a particular religion. It may be that these people independently and objectively all came up with similar positions, by coincidence, but you can forgive someone who saw the correlation, and jumped to the conclusion that the commonality in position was rooted in a common religious understanding, as unfounded as that conclusion may be. Steve kap (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to take Steve out of his fantasy world and remind him of what he is conveniently forgetting, when an observant Jewish editor came along and tried to make edits which used the orthography "G-d", there was unanimous agreement that this orthography was inappropriate for Wikipedia. It is clearly absurd to suggest that the argument over using "Yahweh" at a particular point in the lead of the article was motivated by a religious taboo, and one would have to be extremely prejudiced to draw that conclusion after looking at this talk page objectively and the actual arguments which editors made. Zargulon (talk)

Lets see, its ok for the article to mention events at Mt Sinai, which is described as a "revelation", as reported in the Bible including a reference to the Exodus, but not ok to say that despite intensive archaeological searches no evidence has been found for Israelites at the Mount or even the whole Sinai peninsula. And then particular offence gets taken that not even a sherd of pottery is found (let alone any other evidence for the exodus as a whole) as though this is some colossal insult rather than a simple statement of fact. And I am supposed to believe that particular editors are not protecting their own point of view and using Wikipedia to forward a faith position which really belongs somewhere else. So then I try to be polite and summarise matters in diplomatic words and get criticised for that too, showing that you can't win with these people either way. Drg55 (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Drg, I advised you not to take that personally and I wish you had followed my advice. I don't object to the statement in this article that no evidence has been found for an ancient Israelite presence in what is now called Sinai, but I can understand the point of view of editors who say that it is not directly enough related to the ten commandments, and it didn't help that your original draft of this statement sounded like it was blowing the whistle on some imaginary tyranny of biblical literalists. Editors are allowed to "protect their own point of view" on WP, provided they follow WP's guidelines. And you don't have the right to "win" all the time. Zargulon (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw no indication that Drg55 was taking anything personally. Rather he was realizing, and Zargulon seems to be confirming, that its a mugs game. Editors are playing the reasoning game, but they aren't really reasoning at all. They are using the language of reasoning, but, when that fails, they take great offence, and express their outrage. They are expressing their faith positions. Steve kap (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If he believed it was a "mug's game", presumably he wouldn't have commented at all, and the same goes for you. Zargulon (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Steve kap, please make more accurate Talk: page statements, and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)