10 Commandments

1. Do you tend to think of Exodus 20 or Exodus 34 as "the" 10 Commandments?

Exodus 20: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20&version=NIV

Exodus 34: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34&version=NIV

2. Is there any way to explain a) why they are different b) why we don't tend to write or think about the second version very often and c) how to make them add up to 10 individual commands?

I confess that until I stopped being a Christian, I hadn't even realised there were two versions.

I guess I just naively assumed that Exodus 34:10-26 were additional commands to the things written on the new tablets of stone, but it now seems to me the most natural reading that these where what was written (v 27-28).

Comments

  • You got multiple versions of stories running around. Compiler wants to preserve all they can and/or is not willing to make the call as to which to strike. Compiler puts in both. Literalists spend centuries trying to explain it away without admitting the obvious.
  • Yeah. I suppose the odd thing is why so many are attached to the first version, which where thrown down in disgust and broken.

    Even if you had a fundamentalist understanding of the story, surely the authentic version are the second collection..?

    I've been in churches and seen the first version proudly displayed in oldy-fashioned writing at the front. I don't think I've ever seen anyone do that with the second version.
  • The first version was not thrown down in disgust because of the laws on it but at the action of the Israelites. The choice I suspect is pragmatic for a sect of Judaism that had a large number of Gentile adherents. The second one is very much based around the relationship between God and the Jewish nation with both a ban on alliances with surrounding nations and participation in the major religious festivals.
  • Jengie Jon wrote: »
    The first version was not thrown down in disgust because of the laws on it but at the action of the Israelites. The choice I suspect is pragmatic for a sect of Judaism that had a large number of Gentile adherents. The second one is very much based around the relationship between God and the Jewish nation with both a ban on alliances with surrounding nations and participation in the major religious festivals.

    Yes I suppose I see that. The second set seem to have less general applicability than the first set.

    But doesn't that just leave open the question of why they are different in the first place?
  • Well we could just segue directly to Leviticus where they are broken up into 613 bite sized nuggets.

    AFF
  • There are also two different sets of 10 Commandments. Rome numbers them one way, and Protestants another. I think the Jewish version is the same as the Protestant, but I don't know about the Orthodox.
  • There are also two different sets of 10 Commandments. Rome numbers them one way, and Protestants another. I think the Jewish version is the same as the Protestant, but I don't know about the Orthodox.
    There are actually more than two systems for numbering the Commandments. The differences can be slight, though.

    BTW, in Hebrew, they're traditionally called the 10 Words (from which we get the English Decalogue) or 10 Sayings, rather than 10 Commandments.

  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    There are also two different sets of 10 Commandments. Rome numbers them one way, and Protestants another. I think the Jewish version is the same as the Protestant, but I don't know about the Orthodox.

    It appears to me that there are, in fact, only nine.

  • Blahblah wrote: »
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    The first version was not thrown down in disgust because of the laws on it but at the action of the Israelites. The choice I suspect is pragmatic for a sect of Judaism that had a large number of Gentile adherents. The second one is very much based around the relationship between God and the Jewish nation with both a ban on alliances with surrounding nations and participation in the major religious festivals.

    Yes I suppose I see that. The second set seem to have less general applicability than the first set.

    But doesn't that just leave open the question of why they are different in the first place?

    Because they were passed down, and subject to the Folk Process™, in two separate groups or tribes. Or if you like were invented by two separate people but that seems like reading a modern take into it. I think it far more likely you have a common cultural meme (in the original sense), then the group is split into two (Israel and Judah? Or is that too late?), then when they come back together again their versions have diverged due to the aforementioned Folk Process™.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited November 14
    There are also two different sets of 10 Commandments. Rome numbers them one way, and Protestants another. I think the Jewish version is the same as the Protestant, but I don't know about the Orthodox.

    The Lutherans happen to follow the Roman Catholic numbering of the Ten Commandments.

    Tradition says when the Hebrews returned from exile they rediscovered the ten commandments which is listed in Deuteronomy. While the compilers put everything together, it is important to see which tradition the lists are coming from. I have not been able to study this completely. Will get back to this later.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited November 14
    Back again. After a quick review, it appears Exodus 20 is a E narrative which came from the Northern Kingdom. It is called the Ethical Decalogue in that it is dealing with personal morals. Exodus 34 is from the J source. It is a Southern Kingdom source. It is often called the Ritual Code. While the first three words are quite similar in thrust: the worship of God, the next seven are vastly different. The theory is that the underlying problem concerns the difference in the view of the priesthood.

    However, what I like to deal is whether the ten commandments are prescriptive (you have to deal this way) or descriptive--the ideal faith community will act is this way.


  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Back again. After a quick review, it appears Exodus 20 is a E narrative which came from the Northern Kingdom. It is called the Ethical Decalogue in that it is dealing with personal morals. Exodus 34 is from the J source. It is a Southern Kingdom source. It is often called the Ritual Code. While the first three words are quite similar in thrust: the worship of God, the next seven are vastly different. The theory is that the underlying problem concerns the difference in the view of the priesthood.

    Ha! My guess was more or less correct. <preens>
    However, what I like to deal is whether the ten commandments are prescriptive (you have to deal this way) or descriptive--the ideal faith community will act is this way.

    According to my Hebrew professor at university, it is the latter. The verbs are in the imperfect, what we would call future tense, and should be translated "you will honor your mother and father." Actually the KJV reflects this. "Thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother" is in the future indicative, not the imperative, which would be "honour thou thy father and thy mother."
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited November 15
    For completeness sake and as already alluded to higher up the thread the Deuteronomy 5:1-22 contains the Ten Commandments similar to those in Exodus 20.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    mouse thief: According to my Hebrew professor at university, it is the latter. The verbs are in the imperfect, what we would call future tense, and should be translated "you will honor your mother and father." Actually the KJV reflects this. "Thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother" is in the future indicative, not the imperative, which would be "honour thou thy father and thy mother."
    While I have no reason or competence to question your professor's scholarship, I find it difficult to believe that the commandment was: "At some point in the future you will honour your father and mother". Surely, to all intents and purposes reverence for one's parents was intended to be observed in the present and future as it should have been in the past.
  • Kwesi wrote: »
    mouse thief: According to my Hebrew professor at university, it is the latter. The verbs are in the imperfect, what we would call future tense, and should be translated "you will honor your mother and father." Actually the KJV reflects this. "Thou shalt honour thy father and thy mother" is in the future indicative, not the imperative, which would be "honour thou thy father and thy mother."
    While I have no reason or competence to question your professor's scholarship, I find it difficult to believe that the commandment was: "At some point in the future you will honour your father and mother". Surely, to all intents and purposes reverence for one's parents was intended to be observed in the present and future as it should have been in the past.

    The point wasn't "at some point you are going to do this." It was "THIS is what you are going to do" or "this is how my children behave." Also consider a parent saying, "You are going to march in there and clean your room, young lady." It's an expectation, and something of a threat.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    More like a parent who says, “In this household we say please and thank you, and don’t leave our clothes all over the floor!”
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    mousethief: It was "THIS is what you are going to do" or "this is how my children behave." Also consider a parent saying, "You are going to march in there and clean your room, young lady." It's an expectation, and something of a threat.

    Thanks for the clarification. On the other hand I fail to see that the correction adds significantly to the 'expectation' and implied 'threat in the conventional rendition.
  • The correction isn't meant to do any such thing. It's meant to show what the actual grammar is in the Hebrew.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    Yup!
    I didn't wish to be dismissive of scholarly accuracy or infer it was little more than pointless pedantry. It's just that sometimes a more accurate translation can lead to new understanding. That does not seem to be the case in this instance.
Sign In or Register to comment.