Talk:Ten Commandments

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeTen Commandments was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 7, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 24, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Colouring of numbers in section 3[edit]

In section 3, where the commandments are listed along with their numbering for each biblical tradition, the numbers have coloured backgrounds. Initially, I assumed that entries with the same colour had something in common, and searched the surrounding text for an explanation. I've come to the conclusion that the colours were simply intended to help legibility, but in the current form they are potentially confusing. Either each number should have a totally different colour, an explanation that they have no further significance should be added, or the colours should be removed entirely.

I initially agreed with you and started to delete the background colours BUT looking at the result, I realised that the colours help to see the grouping of the commandments - should be different colours used and not repeated (but not sure how to do that) 185.69.144.69 (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! 10-colour palette added per suggestion. Let’s see how long it is before a vandal reverts it.. 85.255.237.72 (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

The article is written from a Chassidic view, that is, in rabbinic judaism the ten commandments do not exist as a concept. The revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai was Law that was passed on orally, later it was written down and became known as the oral Torah or Talmud. In contrast, Christianity, Samaritanians and several other non-chassidic Jewish communities do recognize the ten commandments. 190.102.58.173 (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t understand what you’re saying: is a Chassidic view NOT rabbinic Judaism ? In my orthodox (rabbinic) synagogue, the Ten Commandments are on the Ark.
Also, the revelation to Moses was 3 fold: the 10 Commandments, the written Torah and the oral law..? 185.69.144.69 (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between rabbinic Judaism and Hasidism Nukie2011 (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember/Observe & Covet/Desire[edit]

These are major differences between the first set of tablets and the second set of tablets, which need to be made known.

Instead of duplicating the verses on 2 separate rows, would it be more logical to have one row for each, with ‘remember/observe’ and ‘covet/desire’??

Views welcome x — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.237.72 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical historical analysis section needs a full re-write[edit]

Almost no sources from the 21st century. Kind of a jumble to read. Anyone up for the task? IncandescentBliss (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coogan‘s book The Ten Commandments: A Short History of an Ancient Text (2015) might be a good place to start
The Ten Commandments: A Short History of an Ancient Text IncandescentBliss (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted and source from Documentary Hypothesis page[edit]

Just a note that I sourced this quote from the Documentary Hypothesis page.

“The consensus around the classical documentary hypothesis has now collapsed. This was triggered in large part by the influential publications of John Van Seters, Hans Heinrich Schmid, and Rolf Rendtorff in the mid-1970s.” IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used its sources for the references as well. IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open discussion[edit]

@potatín5 I’m unclear what the issue is here. I used the source you provided, quoting exclusively from it and you reverted. I have asked specifically that you consult with me on editing my work before deleting. I’m trying to act in good faith here.

The source you quoted said:

a) the definition of the Ten Commandments was “covenant document” b) it cited no sources since 2001 who hold to them being pre-exilic

There is very clearly an academic consensus that the text wasn’t fixed. I’m literally just saying that there were three versions.

Please *in all future cases* consult with me before deleting my edits. IncandescentBliss (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition is more generic and has been longstanding here. Rom-Shiloni's definition is more restricted to its Hebrew Bible context. Take into account that many modern-day Christians do not believe that the Old Testament covenant remains in vogue while still consider the Ten Commandments as an important source for ethical and religious principles. That's why the current definition is preferable. Potatín5 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition should be about what the Ten Commandments are though not what people regard them as today.
Regarding dating, the Oxford article clearly makes the point at the end that there’s a *reason* people are moving in the direction of a later dating. Simply looking at the dates listed in the article makes this clear. He’s not saying there’s three equally present views now. He’s saying there’s three they have been present and one is eclipsing the other two by and large. IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between the three versions is an very common topic in the literature. This should not be glossed over.
Edward L. Greenstein, “Decalogue,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Law, ed. Brent A. Strawn (2 vols.; Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 1.164-72. IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things are always defined in relation to what people regard them to be at a specific time. The Ten Commandments are no exception to this rule (see how Merriam-Webster dictionary defines them here).
Regarding dating, the source clearly states that none of the proposed datings can be demonstrated on firm grounds. You are just supposing things that the source never explicitly states in a way that stands close to WP:OR. Potatín5 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging all extended-confirmed editors to the page since January 1 so we can reach a consensus
@Onel5969 @Bammie73 @Drmies @Auric @Hans-Friedrich Tamke @Chaotic Enby IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

Hi, I was asked by u:IncandescentBliss to take a look at this dispute. I understand that this diff contains the contested changes. There are quite a lot of changes there and it's hard to discuss all of them at the same time. I would suggest discussing them one-by-one, starting from the most important one. Alaexis¿question? 07:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ten_Commandments&oldid=1217245951"