You cannot get to the traditional ten commandments through Sola Scriptura
This is for "5 Solas" protestants, and my intent is to discover whether it is actually Sola Scriptura or just an act. I am an atheist, but that is irrelevant to the point.
It is generally accepted that the "ten commandments" are in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. However, there is a deep disconnect between the story as told and the story as read.
1. The story as told:
Moses goes up to the mount, receives the stone tablets with the commandments and finds the people worshiping an idol upon returning to the base of the mount. That causes him to break the tablets, so he goes up the mount again and receives new, identical tablets with the 10 commandments.
2. The story as read:
Moses goes up to the mount, receives much more than ten commandments (Ex 20 and onwards), how to build the tabernacle, what feasts to celebrate and how to do all that. Then the commandments (no number or content specified) are written in tablets (Exodus 31) and delivered to Moses. He breaks the tablets and goes back up. Then he receives new tablets, identical to the ones before, containing "the ten commandments". The subject of these commandments is in the spectrum of what is written between Exodus 20 and 30, not just the former. But that is in Exodus 34, not 20 nor Deuteronomy 5.
Characteristics that make Exodus 34 the real chapter of the 10 commandments:
1. Written in stone tablets by God
2. Actually called "the ten commandments"
Expected outcomes:
1. Rejection of Sola Scriptura. You accept that the traditional "ten" come from... tradition, not scripture.
2. Alternate thesis that leads to the traditional set of commandments called "the ten commandments" based only in scripture (Sola Scriptura, remember?).
3. Acceptance that "the ten commandments" are the ones in Exodus 34, not the traditional ones.
4. Anti-thesis that exposes how I have misread the text.
Anything else will either surprise or disappoint me.
Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Exodus
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Discrepancy between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5
by John Philip Sousa » Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:09 pm
- John Philip Sousa
Re: Discrepancy between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5
by jimwalton » Tue Apr 23, 2019 1:24 pm
I'm having a hard time figuring out if your issue with the theology of Sola Scriptura, or with the alleged discrepancy between Exodus and Deuteronomy with regard to the commandments.
I'll deal with the latter first, because it comments then on the former.
I see no disconnect between the texts. Let's look it over once again. In Ex. 34, God commands Moses to chisel two stone tablets, upon which God will write what was on the first tablets (that's the first clue that it's going to be the same ten). Moe goes up on the mountain, and the Lord reveals himself (vv.5-7), Moe bows and repents on behalf of the people, and the Lord renews the covenant with them (because it would be easy to believe that the incident of the golden calf in chapter 32 negated the deal). The Lord expresses covenant words—let's try to count 'em.
And then, after renewing and reiterating the covenant, in v. 27, which Moses was to write down, in v. 28 Moses was to write on the tablets the Ten Commandments.
You are making the assumption that the covenant expressed in vv. 10-26 was the same "ten words" that Moe was to write on the tablets, but that's not necessarily so. In Ex. 20, after the 10 commandments are expressed (vv. 2-17), other commands are given that are not part of the 10 (vv. 23-26). Then in chapters 21-23 (known as the book of the covenant), more laws are given that are not part of the 10. And, interestingly, there are many parts of chapter 23 that correspond to Ex. 34.10-26:
What makes the most sense is that the 10 Commandments written in chapter 34 (though they are not spelled out in 34) are the same as the ones in Ex. 20, and that the words of the covenant Moses is writing in 34.10-26 (though not as fully spelled out) are the same as the words of the covenant Moses is writing in Ex. 21-23. Both are 40-day writing periods, and there is enough similarity between the situations and chapters 20-23 and chapter 34 to understanding that this is what is going on.
> Rejection of Sola Scriptura. You accept that the traditional "ten" come from... tradition, not scripture.
Therefore this is not true. I don't need to reject Sola Scriptura. The "10 Words" come from the mouth of God, not tradition.
> Alternate thesis that leads to the traditional set of commandments called "the ten commandments" based only in scripture
All of Exodus is God-breathed. The two sets of commands are complementary, not contradictory or mutually exclusive.
> Acceptance that "the ten commandments" are the ones in Exodus 34, not the traditional ones.
There is no disconnect between the two sets and no reason to decide in favor of one to the exclusion of the other.
> Anti-thesis that exposes how I have misread the text.
I hope I have explained how you have misread the text.
I'll deal with the latter first, because it comments then on the former.
- - The Decalogue (the "ten words") of Exodus 20 are followed by the "book of the covenant" in Ex. 21-23. It takes 40 days for Moses to get them from the Lord on Mt. Sinai.
- In Ex. 34 the Lord gives Moses the Decalogue again (Ex. 34.28), which are not listed out for us again, and Ex. 34.12-27 is a summary of the book of the covenant that is in Ex. 21-23. It takes 40 days for Moses to get them a second time from the Lord on Mt. Sinai (Ex. 34.28).
- There is no difference between the two sets of commandments of Exodus 20 and Ex. 34. Ex. 34 is the same commandments as Ex. 20-23, but summarized rather than delineated.
- Deuteronomy 5 is neither a contradiction nor a conflict with the Exodus texts. They are to be interpreted not as a legislative code but instead as covenantal policy.
I see no disconnect between the texts. Let's look it over once again. In Ex. 34, God commands Moses to chisel two stone tablets, upon which God will write what was on the first tablets (that's the first clue that it's going to be the same ten). Moe goes up on the mountain, and the Lord reveals himself (vv.5-7), Moe bows and repents on behalf of the people, and the Lord renews the covenant with them (because it would be easy to believe that the incident of the golden calf in chapter 32 negated the deal). The Lord expresses covenant words—let's try to count 'em.
- 1. I'll do wonders (10)
2. Obey what I have commanded you (11)
3. I will drive out the people groups (11)
4. Don't make a treaty with them (13, 15), since they were to make a covenant with God, not the surrounding peoples.
5. Break down their altars (13)
6. Don't worship any other gods (14)
7. Don't make cast metal idols (17)
8. Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread (18)
9. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including children (19-20)
10. Remember and sanctify the Sabbath (21)
11. Celebrate the Feats of Weeks (22-24)
12. I will drive out the nations before you and enlarge your territory (24)
13. Don't offer the blood of the sacrifice along with anything containing yeast.
14. Bring the first fruit of crops to the Lord.
15. Don't cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
And then, after renewing and reiterating the covenant, in v. 27, which Moses was to write down, in v. 28 Moses was to write on the tablets the Ten Commandments.
You are making the assumption that the covenant expressed in vv. 10-26 was the same "ten words" that Moe was to write on the tablets, but that's not necessarily so. In Ex. 20, after the 10 commandments are expressed (vv. 2-17), other commands are given that are not part of the 10 (vv. 23-26). Then in chapters 21-23 (known as the book of the covenant), more laws are given that are not part of the 10. And, interestingly, there are many parts of chapter 23 that correspond to Ex. 34.10-26:
- 1. Let the fields lie unplowed during each 7th year (Ex. 23.10-11; 34.21)
2. Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Ex. 23.15; 34.18)
3. "No one is to appear before me empty-handed (Ex. 23.15; 34. 20)
4. Celebrate the Feast of Harvest (Ex. 23.16; 34.22)
5. Celebrate the Feast of Ingathering (Ex. 23.16; 34.22)
6. Don't offer blood and yeast (Ex. 23.18; 34.25)
7. Bring the first-fruits of the soil (Ex. 23.19; 34.26)
8. I will drive out the people groups (Ex. 23.23; 34.11)
9. Don't bow down and worship their gods (Ex. 23.24; 34.14)
10. Break down their altars (23.24; 34.13)
11. I will enlarge your territory (23.31: 34.24)
What makes the most sense is that the 10 Commandments written in chapter 34 (though they are not spelled out in 34) are the same as the ones in Ex. 20, and that the words of the covenant Moses is writing in 34.10-26 (though not as fully spelled out) are the same as the words of the covenant Moses is writing in Ex. 21-23. Both are 40-day writing periods, and there is enough similarity between the situations and chapters 20-23 and chapter 34 to understanding that this is what is going on.
> Rejection of Sola Scriptura. You accept that the traditional "ten" come from... tradition, not scripture.
Therefore this is not true. I don't need to reject Sola Scriptura. The "10 Words" come from the mouth of God, not tradition.
> Alternate thesis that leads to the traditional set of commandments called "the ten commandments" based only in scripture
All of Exodus is God-breathed. The two sets of commands are complementary, not contradictory or mutually exclusive.
> Acceptance that "the ten commandments" are the ones in Exodus 34, not the traditional ones.
There is no disconnect between the two sets and no reason to decide in favor of one to the exclusion of the other.
> Anti-thesis that exposes how I have misread the text.
I hope I have explained how you have misread the text.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Discrepancy between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5
by Dinosaur Jesus » Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:03 pm
Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog. It's actually from an older version of exodus. It very much is understood as "the ten commandments" exodus is actually a combination of multiple works redacted during the Babylonian captivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_Decalogue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_Decalogue
- Dinosaur Jesus
Re: Discrepancy between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5
by jimwalton » Tue Apr 23, 2019 4:03 pm
With your link you have given an opinion, but we all know that wikipedia doesn't really count as an academic source.
Exodus 34 is one of the most difficult chapters in Exodus to analyze, and opinions about how to properly understand the chapter vary widely. Your quick conclusion of "Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog (and the rest of what you said)" is inadequate to comprehend or encompass the scope of the argument at hand. While you have given one opinion, there are many others. That "it's actually from an older version of exodus" is academic speculation from one of the camps, but since no older version of exodus has ever been found (nor is there proof of such a thing), it's an opinion, not a conclusion.
The idea that "exodus is actually a combination of multiple works redacted during the Babylonian captivity" doesn't speak to the issue of source material. It was common in the ancient world for material to be edited through time. That reality doesn't belie that Moses may have been the tradent behind the text or that the pericopes of Ex. 20 & 34 don't originate in the mid-2nd millennium BC, even though their final editing came about during the Babylonian captivity.
So I guess what I'm saying is that your comment doesn't possibly lend as much to the conversation as you intended, nor is it any kind of a rebuttal of my points.
I'd be glad to continue the conversation with you, but let's stay out of wikipedia, and you can share with me the things that you have researched and are ready to discuss.
Exodus 34 is one of the most difficult chapters in Exodus to analyze, and opinions about how to properly understand the chapter vary widely. Your quick conclusion of "Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog (and the rest of what you said)" is inadequate to comprehend or encompass the scope of the argument at hand. While you have given one opinion, there are many others. That "it's actually from an older version of exodus" is academic speculation from one of the camps, but since no older version of exodus has ever been found (nor is there proof of such a thing), it's an opinion, not a conclusion.
The idea that "exodus is actually a combination of multiple works redacted during the Babylonian captivity" doesn't speak to the issue of source material. It was common in the ancient world for material to be edited through time. That reality doesn't belie that Moses may have been the tradent behind the text or that the pericopes of Ex. 20 & 34 don't originate in the mid-2nd millennium BC, even though their final editing came about during the Babylonian captivity.
So I guess what I'm saying is that your comment doesn't possibly lend as much to the conversation as you intended, nor is it any kind of a rebuttal of my points.
I'd be glad to continue the conversation with you, but let's stay out of wikipedia, and you can share with me the things that you have researched and are ready to discuss.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Discrepancy between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5
by John Philip Sousa » Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:32 am
> I'm having a hard time figuring out if your issue with the theology of Sola Scriptura, or with the alleged discrepancy between Exodus and Deuteronomy with regard to the commandments.
A combination of these. My thesis is that nobody applies Sola Scriptura—the principle that every conclusion must be traced back to scripture and not to human tradition.
I would like to take one thing at a time. When I am satisfied with one subject, I shall reply to your comment above. Sounds solid?
> The Decalogue (the "ten words") of Exodus 20
"The Decalogue" is a term used only in Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 4 (IMO with no clear connection to the traditional decalogue in Deuteronomy 5). Why do you use this term to refer to both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 34?
I took a read at some of the answers you provided, and something is alarming:
> What makes the most sense is that the 10 Commandments written in chapter 34 (though they are not spelled out in 34) are the same as the ones in Ex. 20
This is adding meaning external to the text (eisegesis). You are making sense of the text based on your own assumption that The Decalogue is what we see in Exodus 20, and therefore it must have been communicated even if it not actually in the biblical account. That is the contrary of Sola Scriptura (which seems to confirm my thesis).
To summarize:
1. "The Decalogue" is only associated to a set of commandments in Exodus 34
2. The only other biblical mention of "The Decalogue" is in Deuteronomy 4, with no direct association to a set of commandments (assumed to be known by the reader)
3. Association of "The Decalogue" with another set of commandments is justified by eisegesis.
A combination of these. My thesis is that nobody applies Sola Scriptura—the principle that every conclusion must be traced back to scripture and not to human tradition.
I would like to take one thing at a time. When I am satisfied with one subject, I shall reply to your comment above. Sounds solid?
> The Decalogue (the "ten words") of Exodus 20
"The Decalogue" is a term used only in Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 4 (IMO with no clear connection to the traditional decalogue in Deuteronomy 5). Why do you use this term to refer to both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 34?
I took a read at some of the answers you provided, and something is alarming:
> What makes the most sense is that the 10 Commandments written in chapter 34 (though they are not spelled out in 34) are the same as the ones in Ex. 20
This is adding meaning external to the text (eisegesis). You are making sense of the text based on your own assumption that The Decalogue is what we see in Exodus 20, and therefore it must have been communicated even if it not actually in the biblical account. That is the contrary of Sola Scriptura (which seems to confirm my thesis).
To summarize:
1. "The Decalogue" is only associated to a set of commandments in Exodus 34
2. The only other biblical mention of "The Decalogue" is in Deuteronomy 4, with no direct association to a set of commandments (assumed to be known by the reader)
3. Association of "The Decalogue" with another set of commandments is justified by eisegesis.
- John Philip Sousa
Re: Discrepancy between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5
by jimwalton » Wed Apr 24, 2019 9:32 am
> I would like to take one thing at a time. When I am satisfied with one subject, I shall reply to your comment above. Sounds solid?
Yep.
> Why do you use this term to refer to both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 34?
I didn't mention anything about Dt. 34. There's a typo or misunderstanding somewhere, so I can't continue until I know the question. If you meant "Exodus 34," you already said "The Decalogue" is a term used only in Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 4." Ah, well, I can't comment until I know what you meant.
> "The Decalogue" is a term used only in Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 4
Actually, the term "decalogue" never appears in the Bible. Ex. 34.28 is עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים ("ten words"). Deuteronomy 4? You'll need to give me the reference.
> This is adding meaning external to the text (eisegesis). You are making sense of the text based on your own assumption that The Decalogue is what we see in Exodus 20, and therefore it must have been communicated even if it not actually in the biblical account. That is the contrary of Sola Scriptura (which seems to confirm my thesis).
You'll need to clarify. Exodus 34 is a record of the giving of the 2nd set of tablets, explicitly said to be repeating what was on the first tablets (Ex.34.1; Dt. 10.2), identified as the "ten words" (34.28).
Your summary, then, seems inaccurate.
Let's keep talking.
Yep.
> Why do you use this term to refer to both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 34?
I didn't mention anything about Dt. 34. There's a typo or misunderstanding somewhere, so I can't continue until I know the question. If you meant "Exodus 34," you already said "The Decalogue" is a term used only in Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 4." Ah, well, I can't comment until I know what you meant.
> "The Decalogue" is a term used only in Exodus 34 and Deuteronomy 4
Actually, the term "decalogue" never appears in the Bible. Ex. 34.28 is עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים ("ten words"). Deuteronomy 4? You'll need to give me the reference.
> This is adding meaning external to the text (eisegesis). You are making sense of the text based on your own assumption that The Decalogue is what we see in Exodus 20, and therefore it must have been communicated even if it not actually in the biblical account. That is the contrary of Sola Scriptura (which seems to confirm my thesis).
You'll need to clarify. Exodus 34 is a record of the giving of the 2nd set of tablets, explicitly said to be repeating what was on the first tablets (Ex.34.1; Dt. 10.2), identified as the "ten words" (34.28).
Your summary, then, seems inaccurate.
- 1. "The Decalogue" is not a biblical term. The "ten words" of Ex. 34.28 is explicitly said to be a copy of the first tablets of Ex. 20-23 (Ex. 34.1)
2. Deuteronomy 4 doesn't mention "the decalogue," so you'll have to show me that one.
3. Therefore your "eisegesis" analysis doesn't seem to hold.
Let's keep talking.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Discrepancy between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5
by John Philip Sousa » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:27 am
> I didn't mention anything about Dt. 34. (...) If you meant "Exodus 34
Yes, I meant Exodus. Thanks.
> Actually, the term "decalogue" never appears in the Bible. Ex. 34.28 is עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים ("ten words").
Okay, "ten words". "Decalogue" is derived from Greek or Latin. Whatever the term is, it is what we translate to "The Ten Commandments", the set of commandments later put in the Ark of the Covenant.
> Deuteronomy 4? You'll need to give me the reference.
Deuteronomy 4:13
> Exodus 34 is a record of the giving of the 2nd set of tablets, explicitly said to be repeating what was on the first tablets (Ex.34.1; Dt. 10.2), identified as the "ten words" (34.28).
We agree on that. But I fail to see why you conclude that Exodus 20 contains any "ten words", or why you would use that name for the commandments therein.
You seem to only have addressed the term "Decalogue", not what I asked about it.
Yes, I meant Exodus. Thanks.
> Actually, the term "decalogue" never appears in the Bible. Ex. 34.28 is עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים ("ten words").
Okay, "ten words". "Decalogue" is derived from Greek or Latin. Whatever the term is, it is what we translate to "The Ten Commandments", the set of commandments later put in the Ark of the Covenant.
> Deuteronomy 4? You'll need to give me the reference.
Deuteronomy 4:13
> Exodus 34 is a record of the giving of the 2nd set of tablets, explicitly said to be repeating what was on the first tablets (Ex.34.1; Dt. 10.2), identified as the "ten words" (34.28).
We agree on that. But I fail to see why you conclude that Exodus 20 contains any "ten words", or why you would use that name for the commandments therein.
You seem to only have addressed the term "Decalogue", not what I asked about it.
- John Philip Sousa
Re: Discrepancy between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5
by jimwalton » Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:32 am
> You seem to only have addressed the term "Decalogue", not what I asked about it.
Yeah, with the bum reference (Dt. 34), the misnomer ("the decalogue"), the lack of specific reference in Dt. 4 (which you have now told me is v. 13), and that "Decalogue" doesn't appear in the biblical text, I was lost as to what point you were making.
But I did address it. I said, "What makes the most sense is that the 10 Commandments written in chapter 34 (though they are not spelled out in 34) are the same as the ones in Ex. 20) ... Exodus 34 is a record of the giving of the 2nd set of tablets, explicitly said to be repeating what was on the first tablets of Ex. 20ff. (Ex.34.1; Dt. 10.2), identified as the 'ten words' (34.28)."
So perhaps we can continue the discussion from here.
Yeah, with the bum reference (Dt. 34), the misnomer ("the decalogue"), the lack of specific reference in Dt. 4 (which you have now told me is v. 13), and that "Decalogue" doesn't appear in the biblical text, I was lost as to what point you were making.
But I did address it. I said, "What makes the most sense is that the 10 Commandments written in chapter 34 (though they are not spelled out in 34) are the same as the ones in Ex. 20) ... Exodus 34 is a record of the giving of the 2nd set of tablets, explicitly said to be repeating what was on the first tablets of Ex. 20ff. (Ex.34.1; Dt. 10.2), identified as the 'ten words' (34.28)."
So perhaps we can continue the discussion from here.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Discrepancy between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5
by Dinosaur Jesus » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:19 am
> With your link you have given an opinion, but we all know that wikipedia doesn't really count as an academic source.
No encyclopedia isn't a source, it's a source for sources and Wikipedia is among the best.
> Exodus 34 is one of the most difficult chapters in Exodus to analyze, and opinions about how to properly understand the chapter vary widely. Your quick conclusion of "Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog (and the rest of what you said)" is inadequate to comprehend or encompass the scope of the argument at hand.
It's a factual statement on the development of 34 and how it's generally understood by scholars.
> That "it's actually from an older version of exodus" is academic speculation from one of the camps, but since no older version of exodus has ever been found (nor is there proof of such a thing), it's an opinion, not a conclusion.
It's the prominent opinion and taught at most seminaries, beyond that I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
> The idea that "exodus is actually a combination of multiple works redacted during the Babylonian captivity" doesn't speak to the issue of source material. It was common in the ancient world for material to be edited through time. That reality doesn't belie that Moses may have been the tradent behind the text or that the pericopes of Ex. 20 & 34 don't originate in the mid-2nd millennium BC, even though their final editing came about during the Babylonian captivity.
There are a multitude of reasons mosaic authorship is nearly abandoned among scholars. It's a belief that doesn't comport with the evidence at hand from multiple angles. And yes, it is common for edits, which only strengthens the point. And the original source material may date back then, but it doesn't change that they are different traditions clumsily redacted into one story.
> So I guess what I'm saying is that your comment doesn't possibly lend as much to the conversation as you intended, nor is it any kind of a rebuttal of my points.
It rather does, and you didn't meaningfully rebut anything that I said (which is in fact the consensus scholarly opinion). You basically said "I don't believe wikipedia" and "that's just your opinion".
> I'd be glad to continue the conversation with you, but let's stay out of wikipedia, and you can share with me the things that you have researched and are ready to discuss.
There is no reason to stay out of wikipedia save for a few contentious subjects./articles. It's as good as any encyclopedia. If you would like to focus on the sources referenced within the wikipedia page where you think the summary was inaccurate or the source weak that's perfectly fine. Dismissing an article because it's an encyclopedia is unthoughtful.
No encyclopedia isn't a source, it's a source for sources and Wikipedia is among the best.
> Exodus 34 is one of the most difficult chapters in Exodus to analyze, and opinions about how to properly understand the chapter vary widely. Your quick conclusion of "Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog (and the rest of what you said)" is inadequate to comprehend or encompass the scope of the argument at hand.
It's a factual statement on the development of 34 and how it's generally understood by scholars.
> That "it's actually from an older version of exodus" is academic speculation from one of the camps, but since no older version of exodus has ever been found (nor is there proof of such a thing), it's an opinion, not a conclusion.
It's the prominent opinion and taught at most seminaries, beyond that I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.
> The idea that "exodus is actually a combination of multiple works redacted during the Babylonian captivity" doesn't speak to the issue of source material. It was common in the ancient world for material to be edited through time. That reality doesn't belie that Moses may have been the tradent behind the text or that the pericopes of Ex. 20 & 34 don't originate in the mid-2nd millennium BC, even though their final editing came about during the Babylonian captivity.
There are a multitude of reasons mosaic authorship is nearly abandoned among scholars. It's a belief that doesn't comport with the evidence at hand from multiple angles. And yes, it is common for edits, which only strengthens the point. And the original source material may date back then, but it doesn't change that they are different traditions clumsily redacted into one story.
> So I guess what I'm saying is that your comment doesn't possibly lend as much to the conversation as you intended, nor is it any kind of a rebuttal of my points.
It rather does, and you didn't meaningfully rebut anything that I said (which is in fact the consensus scholarly opinion). You basically said "I don't believe wikipedia" and "that's just your opinion".
> I'd be glad to continue the conversation with you, but let's stay out of wikipedia, and you can share with me the things that you have researched and are ready to discuss.
There is no reason to stay out of wikipedia save for a few contentious subjects./articles. It's as good as any encyclopedia. If you would like to focus on the sources referenced within the wikipedia page where you think the summary was inaccurate or the source weak that's perfectly fine. Dismissing an article because it's an encyclopedia is unthoughtful.
- Dinosaur Jesus
Re: Discrepancy between Ex. 20 and Deut. 5
by jimwalton » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:42 am
> Wikipedia is among the best. ... how it's generally understood by scholars. ... It's the prominent opinion and taught at most seminaries
> beyond that I'm not sure what point you are trying to make
The point I'm trying to make is: let's discuss your question and stop appealing to "authority." The chapter is highly debated, with many presenting opinions, so the fact that you can find some scholars to support your position is moot, because anyone can find a cadre of scholars to support virtually any position taken about this text. So rather than saying, "I have some scholars who support my position, which proves that what I'm saying is true," let's talk about the issues and hand and have a good conversation. It doesn't prove your position; it only says that you believe the say a certain camp of scholars do.
You say "Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog (and the rest of what you said)" as if it's a done deal (which it isn't), and then conclude, "It's a factual statement on the development of 34," which is also not a done deal. Let's talk about the text rather than assume your camp of scholars settles the matter.
> There are a multitude of reasons mosaic authorship is nearly abandoned among scholars.
Here you go again. A particular camp of scholars have abandoned the Mosaic source of Exodus/Dt., but a growing number of scholars are also finding that theories of days gone by are not holding up, and there is a trend back toward Moses as tradent of the material, if not the actual writer of a whole bunch of it. The more work that happens, the more tendency is back towards Moses. It's a work in progress, but Mosaic authorship is FAR from abandoned.
> And yes, it is common for edits, which only strengthens the point. And the original source material may date back then, but it doesn't change that they are different traditions clumsily redacted into one story.
But that IS the point: the source material more and more likely does date to "back then" (Mosaic era), and we are beginning to see the edits more clearly. Even then, though, we can't discredit the core material behind the edits as Mosaic. It's almost impossible to tell, but we certainly can't cavalierly jump to its inauthenticity.
> you didn't meaningfully rebut anything that I said
This is a bit disingenuous since the only case you made was two sentences: "Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog. It's actually from an older version of exodus. It very much is understood as 'the ten commandments' exodus is actually a combination of multiple works redacted during the Babylonian captivity."
So let's talk about them. "Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog." First of all, there is no set of *ten* (decalog) of *anything* in Exodus 34. From vv. 10-26 we have a list of 15 items of what "the Lord said, and we can observe that there are 11 parts of chapter 23 that correspond to these 15 elements, but there's nothing in Exodus 34 that is "ten words." Secondly, there's very little in Exodus 34 that qualifies as "ritual." I see the Feast of Unleavened Bread (18), the dedication of the firstborn (19-20, 26), the Sabbath (21), the Feast of Weeks (22-24), blood sacrifice not with yeast (25), and not cooking a young goat in its mother's milk (26). That's 6 things. So where's the support that it's a list of 10 things that are ritual?
"It's actually from an older version of exodus." I did respond to this. I wrote, "since no older version of exodus has ever been found (nor is there proof of such a thing), it's an opinion, not a conclusion." There is no evidence anywhere of an older version of Exodus. If you know of one, please substantiate the claim.
"It very much is understood as 'the ten commandments." I agreed in response to the OP that there is no disconnect between Exodus 20 and 34.
"Exodus is actually a combination of multiple works redacted during the Babylonian captivity.' " I did respond to this. I said this point of view "doesn't speak to the issue of source material. It was common in the ancient world for material to be edited through time. That reality doesn't belie that Moses may have been the tradent behind the text or that the pericopes of Ex. 20 & 34 don't originate in the mid-2nd millennium BC, even though their final editing came about during the Babylonian captivity."
I can continue that case.
So I don't think it's straightforward to claim that I didn't "meaningfully" rebut anything you said. By devoid of "meaningful," are you saying that I proposed a different viewpoint than yours? Yes I did, but that doesn't make my response unmeaningful.
There are my rebuttals to your claims. Let's talk.
> beyond that I'm not sure what point you are trying to make
The point I'm trying to make is: let's discuss your question and stop appealing to "authority." The chapter is highly debated, with many presenting opinions, so the fact that you can find some scholars to support your position is moot, because anyone can find a cadre of scholars to support virtually any position taken about this text. So rather than saying, "I have some scholars who support my position, which proves that what I'm saying is true," let's talk about the issues and hand and have a good conversation. It doesn't prove your position; it only says that you believe the say a certain camp of scholars do.
You say "Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog (and the rest of what you said)" as if it's a done deal (which it isn't), and then conclude, "It's a factual statement on the development of 34," which is also not a done deal. Let's talk about the text rather than assume your camp of scholars settles the matter.
> There are a multitude of reasons mosaic authorship is nearly abandoned among scholars.
Here you go again. A particular camp of scholars have abandoned the Mosaic source of Exodus/Dt., but a growing number of scholars are also finding that theories of days gone by are not holding up, and there is a trend back toward Moses as tradent of the material, if not the actual writer of a whole bunch of it. The more work that happens, the more tendency is back towards Moses. It's a work in progress, but Mosaic authorship is FAR from abandoned.
> And yes, it is common for edits, which only strengthens the point. And the original source material may date back then, but it doesn't change that they are different traditions clumsily redacted into one story.
But that IS the point: the source material more and more likely does date to "back then" (Mosaic era), and we are beginning to see the edits more clearly. Even then, though, we can't discredit the core material behind the edits as Mosaic. It's almost impossible to tell, but we certainly can't cavalierly jump to its inauthenticity.
> you didn't meaningfully rebut anything that I said
This is a bit disingenuous since the only case you made was two sentences: "Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog. It's actually from an older version of exodus. It very much is understood as 'the ten commandments' exodus is actually a combination of multiple works redacted during the Babylonian captivity."
So let's talk about them. "Exodus 34 is the ritual decalog." First of all, there is no set of *ten* (decalog) of *anything* in Exodus 34. From vv. 10-26 we have a list of 15 items of what "the Lord said, and we can observe that there are 11 parts of chapter 23 that correspond to these 15 elements, but there's nothing in Exodus 34 that is "ten words." Secondly, there's very little in Exodus 34 that qualifies as "ritual." I see the Feast of Unleavened Bread (18), the dedication of the firstborn (19-20, 26), the Sabbath (21), the Feast of Weeks (22-24), blood sacrifice not with yeast (25), and not cooking a young goat in its mother's milk (26). That's 6 things. So where's the support that it's a list of 10 things that are ritual?
"It's actually from an older version of exodus." I did respond to this. I wrote, "since no older version of exodus has ever been found (nor is there proof of such a thing), it's an opinion, not a conclusion." There is no evidence anywhere of an older version of Exodus. If you know of one, please substantiate the claim.
"It very much is understood as 'the ten commandments." I agreed in response to the OP that there is no disconnect between Exodus 20 and 34.
"Exodus is actually a combination of multiple works redacted during the Babylonian captivity.' " I did respond to this. I said this point of view "doesn't speak to the issue of source material. It was common in the ancient world for material to be edited through time. That reality doesn't belie that Moses may have been the tradent behind the text or that the pericopes of Ex. 20 & 34 don't originate in the mid-2nd millennium BC, even though their final editing came about during the Babylonian captivity."
I can continue that case.
- * The Jews and Samaritians of the 5th c. BC considered Moses to be the author. (This is especially poignant if you believe the book was written in the 5th c. BC.)
* The Jewish traditions of subsequent centuries considered Moses to be the author.
* Joshua 8.31-32 regards Moses as the author. So also 1 Ki. 2.3; 2 I. 14.6; 2 Chr. 23.18; 25.4; Ezra; 3.2; 6.18; Neh. 13.1; Dan. 9.11, 13, all most likely books from the exilic and post-exilic era when Exodus was allegedly written, as believed by a particular group of scholars.
* There is no competing theory or counterclaim for the author of Exodus until the 19th century.
* There are terms, styles, and themes, that date to the 2nd millennium, not the middle of the 1st.
* The absence of Aramaic, Persian, or Greek influence in grammar and vocabulary or the sort visible in the books that are dated by obvious criteria after the Babylonian Exile (6th c. BC) makes it likely that the Exodus text is earlier than 6th c. BC.
* The historical details in Exodus indicate that it accurately preserves information from the times it describes: The Late Bronze Age, or about a thousand years earlier than the oldest surviving manuscripts of Exodus. It’s reasonable to believe that some of this information had changed or would no longer have been known during the exile, so there is credible reason to believe an early source of this information.
So I don't think it's straightforward to claim that I didn't "meaningfully" rebut anything you said. By devoid of "meaningful," are you saying that I proposed a different viewpoint than yours? Yes I did, but that doesn't make my response unmeaningful.
There are my rebuttals to your claims. Let's talk.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
16 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests