Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Exodus 34:28 refers to what follows it

The RD theory is based on Wellhausenian critics misreading a text that had been read one way for thousands of years. This misreading served their purpose of trying to mince the text into pieces created by different people at different times. You can believe in the fairy tale of the Documentary Hypothesis if you like, but not even all DH people accept this particular misreading.

There is an article about the so-called "Ritual Decalogue". This article has a link to it. That is all that is required. A certain editor wants to have a statement in the lede of this article which says:

<blocktext> The Biblical text in Exodus 34:28 identifies a different list as the Ten Commandments, that of Exodus 34:11–27. </blocktext>

But the vast majority of sources read that verse as referring back to the first verse of Exodus 34:

<blocktext> And the Lord said unto Moses: 'Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon the tables the words that were on the first tables, which thou didst break. </blocktext>

To state -- as fact -- that Exodus 34:28 refers to the immediately preceding text is simply untrue.

The Masoretic text, incidently, has a major paragraph break immediately preceding verse 28. In the Masoretic text, there are minor paragraph breaks and major paragraph breaks, and major paragraph breaks indicate a change in subject.

As a note, the editor in question continues to refer to the version containing the "Ritual Decalogue" in the lede as a "consensus version". The fact is, there are only so many hours in a day. Editors edit what they can, when they can. It is not at all uncommon for an inappropriate edit to an article to sit unchallenged for a year or two simply because other editors have other things on their plates. This does not add weight to an edit. If you can show that there was a multi-editor discussion or debate about an edit and that the dispute was settled in a certain way, that can constitute a consensus. But a lack of challenge does no such thing.

Now. The next time this editor, or anyone else, puts the so-called "Ritual Dialogue" back into the lede of this article, we're going to start going through the steps of dispute resolution. I suspect we'll probably start with an RfC. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We probably will have to go thru DR, because I insist on keeping s.t. in the lede. That was the consensus, however you choose to rationalize it away now. There are also numerous RS's that Ex34:28 is commonly read just as it reads, as referring to Ex34. As I said above, if you wish to change the wording, that's fine, but censorship is not. As for the paragraph break, again, this is OR on your part: the sources we've been using are, for the most part at least, familiar with the Hebrew. You want us to accept your interpretation over theirs? That's not how things work around here.

A superficial reading of the OT finds two texts called the TC's. We have numerous RS's that the phrase TC's is read as referring to those two texts. We only cover one of them in the article. Therefore it is appropriate to inform the reader of that up-front, and not just hide it at the bottom of the page. The consensus was for a mention in the intro. Since no-one here seems to like using a hatnote instead, we're left with keeping it in the intro. — kwami (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean, kwame, "that was the consensus?" Everyone here opposes you. You are opposing the consensus. You can treat wikipedia like your own personal joke (refusing to do any serious research yet insisting on being article dictator) but you cannot twist the basic meaning of Enlgish words around. And to claim that you are being censored is idiotic. You are free to blog on your own website. But we edit wikipedia articles following wikipedia guidelines, and one of them is to edit collaboratively, so stop whining when you refuse to collaborate.

At this point with the exception of throwing up the "censorship" canard kwame has added nothing to dhtis discussion that she didn't put forward a week ago. I do not see any point in responding to any more of kwame's posts. For what it is worth, I think any othe editor here who posts a response to kwame is just feeding the troll.Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, personal attacks in calling me a troll, when I'm obviously not WP:trolling.

You do recognize the past tense, don't you? We did once have consensus on this article. When I say "the last/past/what was consensus", I'm speaking of the past. — kwami (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Disbelievers in DH as fit editors

Lisa, if you believe that the Documentary Hypothesis is a "fantasy," then perhaps you aren't the best person to be editing this article. Do you seriously believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, including the part that describes his own death? *** Crotalus *** 21:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Are you saying that religious beliefs disqualify one from editing Wikipedia? That's a new one on me. Or are you saying that only people who believe that a given religious topic is a bunch of made up nonsense are entitled to edit articles on that topic? Do you understand WP:NPOV? I don't get to insist that Wikipedia have a religious perspective, and you don't get to insist that it have an anti-religious perspective.

For the record, no, I do not believe Moses write the Pentateuch, if by "write" you mean composed or authored. I believe God did that. Moses transcribed it. Yeah, the last 8 verses, too. Not that there's any dichotomy between believing that and believing in the steaming pile that is the Documentary Hypothesis. Just to give you one example of why the DH is ridiculous, the Torah is supposed to have been redacted either around the time of Josiah (Finkelstein etc.) or the time of Ezra (Wellhausen and the old school). These were both times when conflict existed with the Samaritan tribes in the north. II Kings describes Josiah campaigning into Samaritan territory, and Ezra/Nehemiah describes the unfriendliness (to say the least) between the Jews and the Samaritans. And yet we're supposed to believe that specifically at one of these times, the Samaritans adopted the newly redacted Torah as their own scripture. If you believe that, can I interest you in part ownership of this beautiful bridge in New York City? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we can write about things that we either believe or disbelieve. But when you say s.t. doesn't belong because it's nonsense, and it's nonsense because it conflicts with your beliefs, then your beliefs are interfering with your job as an editor. What's relevant is what reliable sources say, not the WP:Truth. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, I don't in any way think that your particular views on how the pentacost got written should in any way diminush you as an editor. Its reasoned argument that counts, not a persons personal beliefs. However, if you want those ideas included in an article, you should realise that, even among Christians, the idea that Mose put pen to paper to create those five books is on the "fringe" side. As to the DH being "nonsence", lets read what Wikipedia has to say "For much of the 20th century Wellhausen's hypothesis formed the framework within which the origins of the Pentateuch were discussed, and even the Vatican came to urge that "light derived from recent research" not be neglected". The DH is the framework for experts. Has been for decades. Now, that doesn't mean its true. But it does mean that its the censensus of experts. And that goes a long way in the Wiki world, if I gather correctly. Steve kap (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't disqualify editors based on their beliefs, which in any event are irrelevant here. Please discuss article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Lest's be honest: this has nothing to do with the DH

This has nothing to do with the Documentary Hyoothesis. In fact, I added content on what scholars worksing within the higher criticism, think of the ten commandments. Neither Lisa nor anyone else criticized it, nor has anyone defleted it. the views of Higher Criticl scholars are well-represented in this article. If someone had the sources and wanted to develop the discussion of views higher critics have over Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 there is room for that, but this is not what kwame is doing, and this is NOT what the conlict is about.

Higher Critics know what the ten commandments are, and they have views as to why there are differences between Exodus 20 and Dueteronomy 5, and when they were authored. Discusion of Exodus 34 is a separate matter. It belongs in another article, because it is no longer a discussion of who authored the ten commandments and when but rather a question on the authorship and meaning of other portions of Exodus. This is a sparate topic. This is unclear to kwame because kwame does not know how to do basic-university level research, he just uses google scholar and then counts the number of hits as if that explains what higher critics mean. When one asks him to do real research he protest that I am asking for an unreasonaly high standard. My dstandard is the one I apply to myself and any substantive edits at ANY article; they are the basic standards we need for an encyclopedia that we wish to be taken seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. My understanding is that the DH in general holds that the RD was the 10C of one source, representing tradition of one time and place, and the ED is another. Now, mind you, this doesn't even have to be true. The fact that mainstream exports in general represent this makes it worth to be promentent in thsi artical. And how can you talk about the RD, how can you show the significants of the differences, if you don't print what the RD is. And what better way than a side by side comparison. I've noticed in the "2nd revelation" section that the chapter and verses of the RD are cited, but in a way that impies that they are the same as the ED!!!! What better way to let be know what they are than, well, writting them out! Side by side, so people can compare.

As to the comments about whats clear to Kwame, what type of research he is capable of, thats all adhum. It shouldn't be part of the descion, and really is in bad form. Steve kap (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the documentary hypotheses?" Are you referring to the hypothesis of one historian, or to the totality of research done by scholars working within higher criticism?

What do you mean, you disagree? Do you disagree that this article contains the views of higher critics? Do you disagree that no editor has deleted these views? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

By DH, I mean it in the general sence. But for specific historians, please ref to those that Kwami sited.

When I say "I disagree", I mean that I disagree with your thesis, that this isn't really about the DH. I think it is, or, rather, about what most biblical historians, who tend to fall broadly in the DH school, think. Namely, by sources cited, they tend to believe that the RD is a version of the 10C.

Do you agree or disagree that at least some (I would argue most) bibical historians see the RD as a version of the 10C, from perphaps a different time or place? If you disagree, what of Kawi's citation? Steve kap (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have provided an explicit answer to your question in repeated postings to this page and to the page on the Ritual decalogue. I have even answered this question in postings directed at you personally. Why should I repeat the answer I have alreadyprovided, and provided a week ago as well? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

hmmm.. I don't recall those questions being answered, and certainly not to me personally!! Now I have seen reponces to Kwami, but nothing that I could take as an answer to these simple questions. But no matter, why don't you just tell me what those answers are? Why? So that I KNOW what those answers are!!! and so I know that they are in responce to these 2 questions!!! And so the conversation would continue. They really are very simple question. I'll repeat for clearity:

Do you agree or disagree that at least some biblical historians see the RD as a version of the 10C?

And if not, what of the citations that indicate otherwise?Steve kap (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

First, read the passage that introduces that section. Since it is a summary of what I have been saying for weeks, you might find it too concise. So then why don't you read my reply to your 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC) post on this talk page? That should answwer both of your 13:13, 25 July 2010 questions. In direct response to your comment, too. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So, your post written 26 July that start "Please cut the crap.." is THAT what you are ref to as your answer to these questions? If so, sorry I didn't see it, you see, I was expecting something more of on the line of "No, I don't think biblical historians see the RD as a version of the 10C.." then followed by reason arguements. So forgive, I didn't see this as a responce. That, and that fact that it was posted 26 July, which is AFTER your whining about "why don't I read your anwers elsewhere". In future, if you want to see your insightful comments as a responce to my question, couple simple step:

Post your responce in the same section as the question, following it, maybe, as in a conversation, and;

Make the text of your responce in the form of an ANSWER to the question being asked. and;

Save the language for the locker, OK my dear friend? Steve kap (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In the future, Steve, just read what I wrote. You will find that in the past I (1) posted my response in the same section as your comment, and (2) posted it immediately following your comment and (3) made my comment a reply to yours. Since that time Jayjg has added some comments in between your original comment and my resply. But the fact remains, Steve, that I see only one 5:24 post from you on this page, and my response (that would be what I wrote below your comment) doesn't have the words "cut the crap" in it. If it helps, my comment is dated 11:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC). Please read what I wrote, tt is too lengthy to repeat. And it itself is a summary of comments I made to kwame on July 10 and 11 that are on this page and I see no reason to repeat. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, I see!!! I thought that you meant the 26 August post, starting with "Cut that crap" because YOU SAID it was the 26 August post!!! My mistake for not being able to know that you meant the 25 July post, as you now say. My bad. But, so there is not confusion, so I or you don't read the wrong post again, so I'm not guess what post you intend as a responce to what, wouldn't it make more sence if you ANSWERED THE SIMPLE QUESTIONS PUT TO YOU? Surly you can summarize? Surly you'd be better at knowing what your intended answer is than me. I'm afaid you've done so much whinning and misdiretly and referencing, that you might have forgotten the 2 questions, so, I'll repeat, untill you answer or refuse to do so:

Do you agree or disagree that at least some (I would argue most) bibical historians see the RD as a version of the 10C, from perphaps a different time or place? If you disagree, what of Kawi's citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is "my bad" - I was confused by the mix of dialogue, and made a mistake. I should have said "read my response to your 05:14, 23 July 2010 comment." And the fact remains: I answered your question, I answered it a few days ago, I answered it in reply to your 05:14, 23 July 2010 comment, I posted my response beneath your comment and in the same section (although there is a discussion between you and Jayjg there too). And you still have not responded to my answer to your questions. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, apology accecpt. It was just a misunderstanding. To the subject at hand, Slrubenstein, if you think you've responded, if you don't have anything to add, that's fine. But maybe some else woud like to weight in. But ofcourse, Slrubenstein, you can add to your position at any time. My same question, to all:

Do you agree or disagree that at least some biblical historians see the RD as a version of the 10C?

And if not, what of the citations that indicate otherwise? Steve kap (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RD again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Terse Lists of Prohibitions: The Ten Commandments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Webster's 10th Collegiate: Decalogue: ten commandemnts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where (how) did I misread a dictionary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SL, my apologies if I misread your questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kwami, you wrote:

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

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

To me, that couldn't be clearer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect?

I mean, we even say "This event occasions a recapitulation of the account of God's inscribing two stone tablets Exodus 34:1-4, and conveying the Book of the Covenant Exodus 34:10-28, in a highly condensed form in Exodus 34", but don't bother to link to the article on Ex34! — kwami (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Therefore we should at least inform our readers that if they're looking for the Ex34 mention of "Ten Commandments", it's covered at different article." - agreed!! The section on the Ritual Decalogue, a whole section in the current article, does just this. Good point! I am glad we have this covered. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree. I restored the redirect to the intro. — kwami (talk) 07:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The redirect does not belong in the intro. That violates WP:UNDUE. You cannot violate policy. The redirect is in the section that currently exists on "the Ritual Decalogue." In the meantime, I am still waiting for you to respond to my inquiries. Who first coined the term "ritual decalogue?" You provided a list of scholars - please provide the sources (publication date and page number) where they write about the "ritual declogue." Is this just a 18th century hypothesis? Or a 19th century hypothesis? How many active researchers still use this terminology? Based on the evidence you have provided it is a fringe view, but if you have better sources, by all means, provide them. Thank you. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"You cannot violate policy". It's not a matter of violating policy. It's a matter of opinion as to whether the policy applies. You state opinions as if they were facts, which is problematic for an editor.

Again, I don't know who coined the term RD; the earliest I can come up with in Goethe, but I can't prove he coined it. Does it matter? You don't demand to know who coined the term 'Ten Commandments', yet are happy to include it here, which is a double standard. And of course these are merely issues of terminology; the relevant point is who first noticed the RD. Presumably the people who compiled the OT did, but historically it can evidently be traced back to the 5th century:

The Old Testament in the Light of to Day a Study in Moral Development, William Frederic Bad, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009, p89.

As early as the fifth century A.D. an anonymous Greek theologian[note: Cf. Nestle, Miscellen, ZAW (1904), p. 134.] credited Moses with the writing of two decalogues, one in the twentieth, the other in the thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus. Since then others have noted the existence of these two completely dissimilar sets of ten commandments. The German poet Goethe was one who discovered the fact during his student days, and made it the subject of his inaugural disputation, maintaining that the thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus contained the original ten commandments.

Of course, for the Greek there could have been no difference between the "Decalogue" and the "Ten Commandments". Per the objections above, Bad also counts the RD as numbering ten injunctions, since one of the 12 statements (on the Sabbath) appears to be a later addition (the term 'Sabbath' is anachronistic in this context), and another is a summary of three individual commands.

I'm not familiar with 19th century use of the term, which it seems you feel is largely irrelevant for current purposes anyway. So, a few modern ones. (Since there are numerous scholars, and any of them could be claimed to be fringe, I'll use lay material this time.)

Commentary on the Torah, Friedman, 2003. (Bible Review wrote "A remarkable work..Friedman is to be congratulated.")

34:28. the Ten Commandments. The second set of the commandments appears here in vv. 14-26. Three of them are similar to the commandments that appear in Exodus 20: the commandment against bowing to other gods (34:14-16), the commandment against molten gods (v. 17), and the commandment to cease work on the seventh day (v. 21). The other seven are different from the Ten Commandments that God speaks aloud over Sinai. In critical biblical scholarship we understand these two versions of the Decalogue to come from two different ancient sources. But how are we to understand them in the final form of the Torah? The answer may lie in a second contradiction: In the first verse of this chapter God tells Moses that "I'll write on the tablets the words that were in the first tablets." But now God tells Moses, "Write these words for yourself" (34:27). Perhaps we should understand this to mean that God writes the words on one side of the tablets, and Moses writes the words of the second set of commandments on the other side. As is commonly noted, the majority of the first set are ethical commandments, involving relations between humans and other humans: don't murder, don't steal, ... The second set are mainly ritual commandments: Observe the holidays, redeem the first born, don't sacrifice with leaven, ... The two sets are thus complementary, involving the two essential kinds of commandments: relations between humans and humans, and relations between humans and God.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Corss & Livingstone, eds. 3rd ed. 1997.

There is another and, acc. to many OT critics, older version of the 'Ten Words' preserved in Exod. 34:11-28, where much more emphasis is laid on ritual prescriptions.

(Note that per this source there is no uncertainty about Ex34 being another TCs; the question is only whether it is older than the ED.)

HarperCollins Bible Commentary, Mays gen. ed. Revised edition, 1988.

34:1-28 The Proclamation of the Covenant: [...] the covenant stipulations are not the same as those in chaps. 20-23. This is surprising, because it is the clear implication of v. 1 that the new tablets are to have the same thing on them that the broken tablets had, and v. 28 states flatly that Moses writes 'the ten utterances' on the tablets. In the text of the chapter, however, there is a different list of apodictic laws (vv. 17-24) in place of the Decalogue. These difficulties have led scholars to the conclusion that chap. 34 preserves a part of the account of the making of the first covenant in the original J narrative, a parallel to the E and P account in chap. 20, even though it now stands as an account of the making of a second covenant, or rather a renewal of the first. The commandments in vv. 17-24 are sometimes called the Ritual Decalogue to distinguish them from the Ethical Decalogue that occupies the same position in the account of the broken covenant (20:3-17).

101 Myths of the Bible, Greenberg, 2000

These [Ex34] then, at least according to the Bible, are the true Ten Commandments, and they differ radically from the commandments verbally announced in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. From here on, I will refer to this new set of commandments as the ritual Ten Commandments. [...]

The Bible presents four different legal codes, each with a claim that it was the original version of God's covenant with Israel. The only version specifically and clearly identified in the Bible as the Ten Commandments is the ritual version.

The Old Testament: a very short introduction, Michael David Coogan, Oxford University Press, 2008, p. 61

A third version of the Decalogue is found in Exodus 34:11-26. [...] this version is a very different set of "ten words" (Exod. 34:28), entirely concerned with proper and improper worship, which is why scholars refer to it as the Ritual Decalogue.

There were thus several versions of the Ten Commandments used in ancient Israel at various times and in various places, and, wishing to preserve them despite their inconsistencies, the editors of the Bible took advantage of the plot to include the Ritual Decalogue.

Like unto Moses: the constituting of an interruption, James Nohrnberg, 1995, p34

The exception is the "Ritual Decalogue" of Exodus 34:13-26: that is the table of laws that actually got inscribed, and in the Sinai narrative it is followed only by the single supplementation of the sabbath law.

— kwami (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, please, please, can we avoid carrying on this debate in the form of comments to the voting section. For this reason, I have cut and pasted the whole thing to the Ritual Decalogue section, where it belongs.

Kwami, you ask whether I distinguish "Ten Commandments" from "Decalogue". No. I do distinguish A decalogue (i.e. any list of ten sayings) from THE Decalogue (the Ten Commandments as known to our culture in general). The phrase "Ten Commandments" (capital T, capital C") can only mean the latter: we say "the Ten Commandments", not "a Ten Commandments". And THE Ten Commandments, in the sense given, is the subject, and the only subject, of this article.

If you like, why not create a disambiguation page entitled "Decalogue", saying that this word means 1. the Ten Commandments (linked) and 2. any other list of ten sayings, and in particular the Ritual Decalogue (also linked). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But the RD is, by several reliable sources, a version of "the Decalogue"; by your definition, it is therefore a version also of "the Ten Commandments". — kwami (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that Kwame keeps using sources that are vague and unverifiable. They all refer to "some scholars." But which ones? Can we have complete citations please, including dates? As far as I can tell, Goethe (not a Bible scholar) was the only one to call it "the Ritual Decalogue." Kwame's own sources are contradictory: According to Friedman, three of the ten "commandments" in Exodus 34 are identical to the three of the commandments in Exodus 20, so there is an overlap rather than two contrasting sets of commandments. According to Cross & Livingston it is verses 11-28. According to Mays it is 17-24. According to Coogan it is 11-26. According to Nohrnberg it is 13-26. None of these sources agree. At best we have a complicated debate among historians that rightly should be explained in a separate article, but we clearly do not have an agreed "ritual decalogue." Moreover, the major Bible scholars I have consulted - and Wellhausen and Noth and Kaufmann are far more significant and notable and any of the sources kwami provides (read ANY history of Higher Criticism or Old Testament scholarship) - do not use Goethe's phrase "Ritual Decalogue" at all; the call this "the Covenant Code" because of its parallels with Exodus 21-23. kwame is pushing a fringe POV. I have revised the article to reflect the consensus, and I have added citations from Kaufmann and Robert Alter, two of the world's most notable Bible scholars, supporting the consensus version. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ritual Decalogue is neither common, nor fringe. It lies somewhere between those two points. My sense is that it is usually (¿only?) found in academic discussions related to the Documentary hypothesis. These sources are either hard copy only, or behind paywalls. Non-academic discussions about it tend to fail WP:Reliable. That said, the ethical decalogue and the ritual decalogue served different functions, with different obligations. The academic discussion is in whether one replaced the other, or evolved from the other, or were both used, but one fell out of favour. For the layperson, the issues are what these decalogues meant, and how were they practiced. My thinking is that Ritual Decalogue needs to a rewrite to explain how it was understood. This article Ethical Decalogue has fairly good coverage of how they have been, and are understood and practiced. jonathon (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it is related to the documentary hypothesis, why is it that Wellhausen, Von Rad, Noth, and Kaufman, the founder of the DH and the major proponents of the documentary hypothesis in the 20th century do not use it, and instead identify Exodus 34:11-24 with the covenant code? No doubt these books are only available in hardcopy, but anyone who insists we write about this in an encyclopedi article ought to go to a library and read (people still read books, don't they?). The distinction between ethical and ritual law is largely a Christian distinction, not a DH distinction. I am not sure who calls Exodus 20 an "ethical decalogue" either. Jews certainly do not, only one of them (thou shalt not murder) is strictly speaking ethical; one is patriarchal (honor thy father and they mother), three are about protecting private property, and the rest are about God. And again, I have several books by higher critics and none of them call it an "ethical decalogue." I wish someone would produce some honest-to-goodness higher critics who actually say these things, before insisting we make all sorts of assertions. I keep asking kwame for sources and get none. One of his sources (Kosmala) is from a 20th century scholar's essay arguing that "ritual decalogue" was a 19th century claim that does not stand up to scrutiny. It seems to me that this makes the idea as fringe as phlogisten. Sure, some scholars "believe" in phlogisten - if we ignore the copyright dates of their publications. Once you put dates to everyone who holds this view, it becomes a historical footnote, and definitely not a "significant view". Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

SL, you are exaggerating things here. Friedman never says that three of the ten are "identical" to the ED, he says that three are similar, a point which others have noted as well. The other "disagreements" are also largely illusory. Vv. 27-28 describe the writing of the RD; of course they aren't the RD itself, but identify the RD. So Cross and Coogan do not contradict each other. I'm not sure what to make of Mays, as I do not currently have access to it. It would be a very odd way of cutting off the text; he may be have analyzed the surrounding verses as part of another tradition.) The clear exception here is Nohrnberg, who starts the count with v. 13. That is a difference, but an understandable one: v. 11 is a command to obey the commandments, and v. 12 is a warning, not an actual command. So the difference is semantics. Saying this invalidates the RD is like saying the ED is invalid because Jews count "I am the Lord thy God" to be a commandment, while Christians do not.

As for sources, it's hard to know what you want. Old sources aren't current enough, but recent sources aren't original. I don't have access to the original scholarship, and in any case am not terribly interested; what is relevant for inclusion of an idea is largely current reception, and there are numerous attestations of that. You also keep coming back to the point that Wellhausen doesn't use the term RD. So what? That's a question of naming, and irrelevant to whether this article is justified. We move articles to better or more current names all the time; that doesn't mean their contents are invalid. We could call this "Decalogue (Exodus 34)", "Ten Commandments (Exodus 34)", etc. if you think the term "Ritual Decalogue" is not justified. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No. The RD is not a version of "the" Decalogue/Ten Commandments. It is a possible source (or, more accurately, prototype) for it/them. I've no strong views on whether it should be "Ritual Decalogue", "Primitive Decalogue" or "Covenant Code" (I've seen all three), as long as there is no attempt to fudge it with the Decalogue. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a particular POV, that of Goethe. There are scholars who feel that the RD postdates the ED, and was not a prototype for them. Another POV is that they are a version of the Decalogue: that's why they're called the Ritual/Cultic Decalogue! This is precisely the point. I'm not trying to fudge it with the ED, that would be silly. But the term "Ten Commandments" applies to the RD as well as to the ED, even if in common usage it is generally restricted to the ED.

• Bad: "As early as the fifth century A.D. an anonymous Greek theologian credited Moses with the writing of two decalogues [...]. Since then others have noted the existence of these two completely dissimilar sets of ten commandments."
• Friedman: "In critical biblical scholarship we understand these two versions of the Decalogue to come from two different ancient sources."

(This under "34:28. the Ten Commandments")

• Corss: "There is another and, acc. to many OT critics, older version of the 'Ten Words' preserved in Exod. 34:11-28".

(That is, that Ex34 is another version of the TC is given as fact; that Ex34 may be the older version is given as a hypothesis.)

• Coogan: "A third version of the Decalogue is found in Exodus 34:11-26"
• Nohrnberg: "The exception is the "Ritual Decalogue" of Exodus 34:13-26: that is the table of laws that actually got inscribed"

Again, I'm not trying to say the RD is the ED; it clearly is not, not in the way Ex20 and Dt5 are variants of essentially a single text. But seeing Ex34 as another TCs/Decalogue has a long history that continues to this day. — kwami (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve kap's views

Lets be clear what going on here: A bunch of people got their feelings hurt because parts of bible were talked about here that make the bible look rather silly. Thats what this is really all about. Note that a promenent place that either Chritianity or Jedaism plays in the home pages of all the anti RD crowd. Sorry if this further hurts your feeling, but it must be said. Now, to deal with the arugments:

"Whether or not the biblical text calls it the Ten Commandments is actually a big question, isn't it?" Yes, Jayjd, it is. And its been answered by 1) The bible (just read it, using normal rules of grammar) and 2) Biblical scholors who, as far as I can tell, almost universally accept at least the broad strokes of the "documentary hypothisis" and see the RD as an earlier version of the ED.

"Nobody, but nobody, calls the Ritual Decalogue "The Ten Commandments", (Sir Myles na Gopaleen)Really Sir Myles? How could you possibly know this? Have you asked everyone? Every single person that ever existied? As a rule of thumb, if a statement starts with "Nobody" or "never", you know its not going to be true. As it happens, it the scholars in this field are correct(see above), countless generations have lived and died knowing NOTHING BUT the RD!!

Also note that the butchering of the RD section in the "contraversy" section, I haven't seen any justification for that. Also note the decided LACK of scholorly tone, thinking and refference throught the article. How is removing the reasoned arguments of experts, and siting the source of those arguments something you want to get ride of,, unless,, unlesss...

As a matter of procedure, shouldn't the version that was stable for over 1.5 years take persidence over such mass revisions? At least until a consensis is formed? Do religous people have one set of privelged rules, and the rest of us have to play by the written rules?

As a matter of priciple: I don't like religous bullying. Its something we all need to stand against. Steve kap (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Discuss article content, not other editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with my (or anyone else's) religious susceptibilities, only with the normal use of language. I have no objection whatever to someone expounding the theory that the RD was the original form of the decalogue while the ED came later, as long as it is not presented as undisputed fact: it may even be true. It's just that "the Ten Commandments" has a clear meaning in all normal, and most scholarly, usage, and that's what this article should be about. Also in normal usage it is clear what I mean by saying "no one calls a dog a cat", even if I cannot absolutely disprove the possibility that there is one person living in Epping who does. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I quite agree with Sir Myles on this point. We shouldn't be presenting anything like "These ARE the 10 commandments" Its should be more like "These are what are taken to be the 10C". And with that, I'd think the RD should be included. For 2 reasons: 1)Almost all modern scholors see the RD as a version of the 10C, and 2) Readers spontanioulsy read RD, and 34:28, as saying the RD is the 10c. It should be noted that the popular, common ussage of the 10C is the ED. But the thinking of exports shouldn't be ignored. In summation, and in agreement with Sir Myles, we don't try to present what IS, just what people think, say, write. Steve kap (talk) 05:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the RD is older than the ED. That's Goethe's take on it, but other scholars have reached different conclusions: that it is the ED which is older, that the RD and ED are parallel developments, that the RD is the Covenant Code relabeled as the TCs at a later date. All of those conclusions, however, are based on the application of "TCs'" in Ex34:28 to the preceding text. I also agree that this article should be about the TCs as commonly conceived. Nonetheless, there are only two passages called the TCs in the Bible, and I think that they're both worth a mention in the intro. That was the previous consensus, one which everyone agreed to. — kwami (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, stop pushing WP:UNDUE material into the lede. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, stop censoring WP:RS material from the lede. How many refs do you want to indicate that the obvious reading of Ex34:28 is also a mainstream reading? I added four, included a mainstream annotated Bible. If I had 20, I suppose you would continue to argue that it's "fringe", just because it's not your interpretation? Which twisted logic do you use to argue that Ex34:28 says anything other than what it says? (And no, these are people who know their Hebrew. It's not a matter of translation.) If you take issue with the wording, we can work on that, but it is common to read the phrase TCs in Ex34 to refer to Ex34. — kwami (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, kwami, it remains WP:UNDUE. And there is no consensus for it, so please stop misstating that in your edit comments. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That is your own opinion. You've provided no evidence to support your opinion. Mentioning the RD in the intro was part of the last consensus this article had. And there is no consensus to remove it, so please stop forcing your POV. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you imagine the "last consensus" to have been, there's obviously no consensus for it there now - and falsely asserting there is in edit summaries is needlessly provocative. Regardless, it's mentioned in the body of the text. And in the future, please ensure any presentation of it is worded in compliance with WP:NPOV - Wikipedia does not use its narrative voice to assert that theories about various biblical verse are fact, any more than it would use its narrative voice to assert that the various biblical verses are themselves fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

When there has been discussion going on for about a month, in which only one person (kwami) wishes to include mention of text that is not the ten commandments, and every other editor rejects this suggestion, I would say that Lisa is expressing not opinion but fact. The current article is the consensus version. The fact that kwame does not like it does not mean that it is "not the consensus version," it means "kwame does not like the consensus." Live with it. If you care so much about the ritual and ethical decalogues, why don't you do some serious research reading the major sources, and improve the existing articles on those topics? At this point, you are simply harassing the editors who work on this page. It looks like you are just a disruptive editor. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, ofcourse its not just one person. Its at least two people, kwami and me. And it's been as steady stream, maybe 1/months, of more casual readers/editors writting in comments like "this isn't the REAL 10 commandments, see exudus 34" and "Did you know there is another set of commandments" and "Why don't you talk about what THE BIBLE ref to as the 10C, ref to Ex 34.28. And ofcourse, there is the little matter about the experts in the field, most of which see the RD as an earlier version of the 10C, and very nearlly all of which see the RD as ONE version of the 10c. Also, there's the small matter that the pervious version, which was stable for over a year, was the result off a protracted arguement and grudging concencess. And the not so small matter that the change was made without concencess, or discussion. So, do the past editor, do they count? Does kwami count? Do I count? Do experts in the field count? Do the rules count? Its up to you. Steve kap (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to ever have been a consensus for it, and, in any event, the current consensus is against it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, its stood unchanged for 18 months, without objection, except for the steady stream of comments that see to think that the RD wasn't presented enough. So, what about that steady stream of commentors, what, if they aren't here right now, they don't count? What about the ref that Kwami cites? Can you name any scholors thats self idendified with a religous tradition who DONESN'T see the RD as a version of the 10d? Can you name even one? Because Kwami quoted several. Seems to those that study the bible, who have made a living learning its history, almost universally see the RD as a version of the 10C, and, really how could they not. So it seem the idea that the RD has nothing to do with the 10C is an extreme fringe idea. I suppose it should be noted. But it shouldn't shape the article. Don't you agree? Steve kap (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review this discussion from June 2006, this discussion from October 2007, and this discussion from July 2008, all of which you participated in, in which it was made clear there was no consensus for your inserting this material. This article is about what is commonly known as the "Ten Commandments". There's a whole article on the modern theory of the Ritual Decalogue; feel free to use all those sources in that article. And please don't repeat arguments that have already been gone over at length in the sections above and below (and, indeed, for many years on this Talk: page). Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I just reread the July 2008 discussion, and it clearly says that there was consensus to include a mention of the RD, and at the time that mention was in the intro. Two people debated Steve, both said this, no-one contradicted them, and that mention in the intro stood unopposed for two years, which in itself demonstrates consensus. I find it quite bizarre that we would look at a text that says A, point it out to other people, and claim it says not-A. — kwami (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, thank you for reminding me of that debate. That was the one ended with JDwolf re-writting my proposed "RD" section in the "controversy" section, which was the consensus of the debate. It also ended with JDwolf agreeing (granted, with sarcasim) that one would have to be quite bad at grammar if they could see that Ex 34:28 ref to Ex 34: 27,26... ect. In other words, that the phrase "the ten commandments" ref to the RD. So, I take it that you have no objection to adding the consensus text back in then, yes? Steve kap (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to differ on what the consensus was then; in any event, there's no real point in arguing about what exactly the consensus of four years, or two years, or 18 months ago was. There's clearly no consensus for including this WP:UNDUE material in the the lede now. What not clear is why you (Steve) keep writing things like "I take it that you have no objection to adding the consensus text back in then", or you (kwami) keep claiming in edit summaries that it is the "latest consensus", when it's obvious that that text is not "consensus", and that the majority of editors here (including me) object to it. Please stop "deliberately asserting false information". It's mentioned in the body of the text, which fully complies with WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But it clearly was the latest consensus, which is all I ever said. There has been no consensus to delete relevant disambiguating material from the lede, so I will continue to insist we keep it. — kwami (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the latest consensus was clearly to remove the material from the lede, which is why so many people said it should be removed, and removed it from there. If you meant the previous or earlier consensus, well, we disagree on what that was, so it's rather provocative to continue to insist it existed, but in any event "latest consensus" is definitely false. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayjd, no, we don't have to differ on "latest consensus". We just have to go back to the record. Like, for example. When JDWolf grudginly put back in the RD contriversiy section. Thats all been recorded, with his comments and everthing. And the arguments of the editors that convinced him to do so, thats all there to.

Also, as to Kwami's 2nd point, is there a list of people that can make changes without consensus, and another list of people that DO need consensus TO CHANGE IT BACK? If there is, could you share it? Steve kap (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called "majority rule". If you outnumber the other side, then you can win the debate through edit warring. (Excuse me, we're now calling that "consensus".) — kwami (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What you believe was "consensus" two years ago is irrelevant. We're here now, and there's no consensus for the material. Please focus on getting consensus, not asserting the existence an ancient, non-existent one. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what's relevant is that whatever you change the article to is the new zero point, and any changes from that need consensus. Quite convenient.

Or perhaps removing material doesn't require consensus, only adding material? So if I were to remove the material on Exodus 20, arguing that it's not the true TCs of Deuteronomy, you wouldn't be able to restore it until we all agreed on it? — kwami (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

kwami, when 6 editors are reverting your edits and/or disagreeing with them in talk, you can take that as a strong indication that there is no consensus for whatever you are doing, and consensus for the alternative. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, is it to you alone to decide what is relevant, and when a consensus is met? And, again, who are these charmed few that can remove material before any talk about it? 01:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)

Kwami, I missed this the first time, but did you notice that Jayjd call you and me a liar? With his "please deliberately asserting false information". Is this his idea of being civil. Mind you, he didn't bother back up his claim. Jayjd, this is a serious breach of decorom. I don't know how it is where you come from, but where I come from, before you call make such an accusation, be better be damn sure you can back it up, and you CAN be damn to be called to account. I'm usually a bit tongue in cheek, but, my friend, there are lines. And you crossed on, big time. You need to apologize. Steve kap (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

JDwolf, lets get it out in the open: If you had your way, would there be any mention of the RD anywhere on Wikipedia? You have argued to have it off this page, and when it found its own page, you argued to have that page deleted, with material merged back to this page (the very page you argued to remove it from). I'll assume good will untill you answer (or refuse to answer), but lets have it, is it or is it not your goal to get any mention of the RD off of wikipedia? Steve kap (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Steve, please review WP:NOTAFORUM. This page is only for discussing article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Stevekap is a typical disruptive editor. Nothing he has written in any way is constructive. It is all based on inuendo about what we "really feel." What evidence does he have that my feelings were ever hurt? What evidence does he have that I care whether the Bible "looks silly" or not? For that matter, in what way does any discussion of the Ritual Decalogue make the Bible "look silly?" Why should we be editing articles based on how they make the Bible look? I don't want Stevekap to answer these rhetorical questions, hopefully he has the brains to see that my point is, none of this matters. In the meantime, we have kwame, who, when asked to make sense of his claims, ends up saying that he doesn't have the time to do the research and really doesn't care. Well, that says it all, I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You're demanding a higher standard of research for this topic than for others. That's like literacy tests for voting. I don't have access to the kinds of resources you evidently do; my local library has the kinds of sources that I've already provided, and which you seem to think are insufficient.

You are, again, misrepresenting what I've said. What I don't care about is exactly how the RD article is fleshed out, whether it's primarily about Goethe's idea or competing explanations of the Ten Commandments of Exodus 34. (The RD is older than the ED, younger than the ED, parallel to the ED, a summary of the CC mislabeled the TC's, etc.) What I do care about are attempts to censor this article in the pretense that there is no legitimate claim that the phrase "Ten Commandments" in Ex34 applies to Ex34. That is certainly a mainstream understanding, as has been demonstrated over and over, and evidently has been noted since at least the 5th century, even if it's not the only understanding. True, there are many who argue that the phrase in Ex34 applies to Ex20, and that probably is more widely believed than the obvious reading, which is why I don't mind limiting the article to the Deut. version. But the last consensus was a reasonable one: mentioning in the intro that the other text frequently cited as being called the TC's is covered in a separate article. — kwami (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

JlRebensien.I quite agree, we should not be editing in based on how it would make the bible look. This is just what I'm trying to prevent. So we agree on that much. With that in mind, Kwami has present scholors, which, from what I can tell, represent the mainstream of biblical scholorship, which all see the RD as a version or the ED. With that in mind, what posible objection would you have in stating that fact, and putting the 2 side by side, so people can compare? And if it is so that you don't feel verses like "the first that opens the womb is mine" and "don't cook a kid in its mothers milk" are silly, and if I implied otherwise, I apologize. 01:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)

What do you mean, "Kwami has present scholors, which, from what I can tell, represent the mainstream of biblical scholorship, which all see the RD as a version or the ED." What do you mean, from what you can tell? have you read none of my objections? Have you read none of the sources I provide, including the major Higher Critics of the 20th century, Wellhausen and Kaufmann, as well as Noth, who is almost as important and more recent, and who make a different claim from what kwame suggests? What research have you done on this topic? I see no evidence that you understand higher criticism at all.

Also, please explain: if you do not care about how this makes the Bible look, why did you bring it up in the first place? You wrote, "A bunch of people got their feelings hurt because parts of bible were talked about here that make the bible look rather silly." Then you clairified that the verse about boiling a kid in its mother's milk is silly. Now you have to be accountable for what you write. What is your evidence that any - any - editor got his or her feelings hurt? And what is your evidence that someone's feelings got hurt because some part of the Bible was talked about that makes the Bible look silly? And what is your evidence that the verse on boiling a kid in its mothers milk is silly? Please support your claims with some evidence. Otherwise you are just irrational. And having some irrational editor who never did any research on this topic adding his views here is not going to help resolve any conflict. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to explain, thanks for asking. "From what I can tell", that means something like "from what I gather". I implies that I haven't done the indepth research, but, taken what I've been presented, I believe thus and so, previsionly, until convinced otherwise. Thats what "From what I can tell" means. As to "why I bring this up" here is my answer: I think the reading public has the right to know what experts think, and what verious people think. I think they have to the right to know whats in the bible, and how its interpreted. I feel its my duty to stand agaisnt any effort of censorship, any effort that would block people from knowing such things. As to evidence about the kid, goat think being silly to most people, I just have my personal experience; whenever I inform people that this is in the bible, they laugh a bit. I constain further post to strickly the article, this was just to answer a direct question. Steve kap (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cut the crap. Your answer tells me nothing. What, exactly, was "presented" to you and why, exactly did it lead you to believe that a bunch of people got their feelings hurt? What made you think that these people thought that the prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother's milk is silly? So far you have been evasive, but YOU opened this section by saying "let's be clear here." So obviously you believe that it was clear that people's feelings were hurt, and that it was because theis prohibition "makes the Bible look silly." Or, you thought that saying this brings clarity to this conflict. Were you trying to clarify things, or were you really trying to obscure the issues? If you really meant to clarify things - and that I am asking you these questions means that I am so far continuing to assume good faith and further assume that your opening statement "clarifying" matters was truthful and serious, then you need to be clearer. What is your evidence that I and others oposed to the inclusion of this material do so because of hurt feelings? What is your evidence that our feelings are hurt because the verse in Leviticus makes the Bible look silly? You said you wanted to be clear. So be clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I thought I answered quite directly, but I won't want to be accused of being evasive, of NOT ANSWERING SIMPLE DIRECT QUESTION like some, so I'll give it another go: When I refed to "what was presented", I was ref to the citations that Kwami presented. I thought that would be clear in context, but if it wasn't, there it it. As to "people got their feeling hurt..", that suposition was mine alone. Its an inference I drew, from that rationality and tener of what was presented by some, it could be right, could be wrong. As to "make the bible look silly", in general, when some randomly selected people (ie, the people I've ref to) find something silly, others will to. Now, if that doesn't include you, fine, I hearby concide that you don't think this part of the bible is silly. This line of questioning is silly, but, hey, you asked. I'd be willing to answer any other such question at length, if you think it will further the discussion and help lead to consensis. But if not, I ask you to consider asking and answering question that have a bit more to do with the subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have answered your questions in full; you still have not responded to my answers. But as to your answers, they make it clear: your claim that people's feelings are hurt because these versus make the Bible look silly are absurd on their face, since none of the people who oppose the edits you support think these versus make the Bible look silly. What is telling is that you think they make the Bible look silly. This is telling because wikipedia editors' personal views should not count. However, it is clear to me that you are just projecting: the reason you care so passionately about keeping Exodus 34 in this article is because you think it makes the Bible look silly, which is your agenda. You wish to include thse verses despite the fact that doing so distorts higher criticism. And this is the real problem: you care more about your campaign to make the Bible look silly (which itself is silly - I mean, no one has ever hidden these verses, everyone knows Jews keep kosher for example) than you do about presenting real scholarship carefully. You would even disort and misrepresent what higher critics say. Because higher critics are not trying to make the Bible look silly. And the interpretations Bible critics have regarding the Ten Commandments is not that "hey are silly." That is not what higher criticism is about. Now, I have explained what higher criticism is about, and also what the consensus of higher critics today is. But you do not like that, because it does not serve your desire to make the Bibl look silly. So you ignore current scholarship and distort higher criticism. This is intolerable. Wikipedia has scholarly standards. Articles shoud be based on quality research, not on the prejudices of its editors. This article will explain what current critical Bible scholars do say, and not cherry-pick and misrepresent what some scholars once hypothesized and debated. The criteria is not your desire to make the bible look silly, the criteria HAS to be to represent critical Biblical scholarship accurately. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits of 29 June RE RD

There was a rather large edit, by Jdwolff, on this date removing materail regarding the so called Ritual Decaloge. Since then, there have been a lot of reverts, and a continous discussion on this page, both.

I contend that there has been no concensus for this change. My understanding of the rules are that large changes should not be made without consensus. It would seem fair to me that, while this subject is being, the substance of the text in question should go back to the previous version, that shoulding the RD side by side with the other 2 versions, and a more fleshed out explaination in the "Controveries" section.

I'd suggested we keep this section just on procedure, we can continue to debate, work towards concences in other sections.

What say you? Do you agree that no concensus has been reached? Do you agree with my representation of the rules? Steve kap (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There is consensus: User:Jfdwolff, User:JoshuaZ, User:Slrubenstein, User:Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, User:Lisa, jonathon, User:Meishern, User:Avraham, User:Bus stop and User:Jayjg. The fact that you and User:Kwamikagami disagree does not mean there is no consensus, and your constantly pretending otherwise, or repeating the same arguments again and again, is disruptive. The consensus for this is abundantly clear, and I don't plan to respond further here. If you have any further questions or responses, please refer back to the previous statements I and others have made on this page, where they will no doubt be well answered. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a vote, but external support for a particular POV that's clear enough for any rational person to accept. We don't have that here: Here we have numerous sources which speak of there being two sets of TCs in Exodus; since this article is ostensibly about the TCs, it's appropriate to note in the intro that it effectively only covers one of them, the one traditionally accepted as the TCs. We're not asking for equal time, just a note, up front, that what numerous scholars note are a version of the TCs is covered by another article. That's the norm in Wikipedia. — kwami (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

rrr Jaygd, is that YOUR idea of consesus? When an editor DECLARES the debate over, DECLARES that any oppostion is disruptive, and refuses to engage in any dialoge? When there are so many pages of debate, a biweekly archive is needed? When two sides can't even agree on the facts? THATS a consensus? Really? If this is consensus, I'd hate to see a disagreement. Steve kap (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, I'm not JUST asking for a note up front. I think its important to have the versins side by side. How are people to understand what the differences are, unless they can compare them. Now, it should be clear whats what, that the first 2 are whats currently, widely, popularly seen as the 10C, and the other is seen by some (most/) scholors as a ancient VERSION of the 10C (much like the artical about "The House of The Rising Sun" talk about the folk versions AND the "Animals" version).

Now, Jayjd, notice how I don't simply DECLARE that this is the concensus view, and DECLARE any debate would be only disruptive, and DECLARE that I've answered any possible questions. Because that would be wrong. Steve kap (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But I digress, here we have staked out 2 very different position. I contend that there has NOT been a consensus for the subject change, pointing to the non-stop debate, the revert war, and that no agreement has been made. Jayjd, on the other hand contends that there IS a consensus, pointing out that this fact is "abundently clear", so much so that he vows to address the matter no futher. What do other people think? Steve kap (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

When I made the initial edit, it was on the basis of the well-known policy of BOLD - revert - discuss (BRD). It is allowed to make such edits, because otherwise articles would never change without lots of discussion. When Kwami disagreed I had to find consensus to support the version that I preferred, which has now appeared overwhelmingly in favour of downgrading the whole RD kaboodle.

I see that you are essentially a single-purpose editor. Since 2006, most of your edits have been to this very talkpage. I don't get the impression that you have much experience with the way consensus is formed on Wikipedia. I suggest that you have a look at the BRD article and some other policies and guidelines about consensus on this project. JFW | T@lk 20:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, ofcourse, this talk about me, thats adhum, thats not at all to the point. Do you think these rules are just for other people? Or do they apply to you as well? Now, back to the point.

You say there was a consensus. Who determined there was a consusus, and when? Can you point to a place in the talkpage when a consensus was reached? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.115.105 (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I din't quite catch that JfdW, WHEN was that consusensus that you ref to? It must have happened pretty quick, because I see there was a re-revert within hours. Surely this re-revert happend AFTER the discussion/ consuesus, because otherwise it would be in violation of the BOLD policy that you so aptly cited. But, pray tell? Where is it? And when was it? You say it was OVERWHELMING, so it should be easy to spot... and yet... and yet.... Or, maybe these BOLD rule just apply one way. Or it could be that some people are on some special list.. is that it?? Steve kap (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you expect him to admit that he only uses policy as an excuse, to be abandoned as soon as it doesn't support his position? That he believes the end justifies the means? Good luck. — kwami (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

JFW, any luck on finding the cosensus that you found so overwhelming, and Jayjd said was so obvious? Must have been after 12 July, when you said we STILL NEEDED a consensus.. but yet... I can't seem to find it. Maybe this will help, what was this event marked by? Did it come to you all at once that there was a consensus, or did the idea build in your mind slowely? I'm I being unfair? Was it not YOU that claimed that there was one? Is it uncivil of me to ask for evidence of it? Steve kap (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is on this talkpage. Consensus was reached (>10 editors in favour of my modification) after the initial edit. That is okay. See WP:BRD. Your allegations of a cabal and of me bending policy to favour my views are very quaint. I have a perspective, like you do, and make sure that my perspective is in alliance with policy. If my edits were against policy then I suspect they would not attract the support that they have. If you that desperate to suggest that I have acted against Wikipedia policy then I suggest you stop ranting over here and move on to further steps of dispute resolution. I will not be responding further on this talkpage unless you have anything truly novel to contribute to the discussion. JFW | T@lk 05:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see, the evidence is ON THE TALK PAGE,,, but, for the 3d time, where? So, me asking for evidence for statements you've made, THATS a rant? Interesting... And who desided it was a consensus? Was there any meeting of them mind? Or is consesus just a majority vote? I continue to ask, when was the consensus? What was the event that signaled the consesus? Steve kap (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus" is a majority vote. That's pretty clear. It also appears that only primary sources are acceptable; though that hasn't been stated directly, WP:secondary sources are ignored as if they hadn't been presented. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the rest of the WP community feels this topic is important enough to bother keeping it in line with WP standards. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if "consensus" is a majority vote, then, we're sunk. I don't like it, but I'll follow the rules. But we can still offer reasoned arguements.

As to "implying" the JFW only following the rules when it suites him, I'm not implying that, I'm stating that plainly. Did get a consensus BEFORE he re-inserted that change? Of course not. He's doing the same thing with the "External Links" right now!!! There is no hiding from it, and its clear to anyone that looks. The funny thing is, with Majority Rule, he probably would end up with his own way, which is all he seems to care about. But he apparently has so little respect for rules, for free expression, for other people, that he don't even bother to do that. Cheers. Steve kap (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean consensus meant a majority vote on WP; it doesn't. (WP:vote, WP:Consensus.) It only means a majority vote on articles in which a majority are able to force their way through edit warring. You know, BRDRRRRRRRRR. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, JFW just clarified the rules with his latest edit summary: If you make an edit, and JFW reverts it, then per WP:BRD you need to come to a consensus before restoring it. However, if JFW makes an edit, and you revert it, then per BRD, JFW can restore it and you need to come to a consensus before reverting it.

Rules are only to be followed when convenient. — kwami (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting JFW. Where on this talk page do you see, with reguard to the RD, a consesus?Steve kap (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

See, for instance, Jayjg's post at 03:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC). It lists the editors by name who agreed that the emphasis on "RD" was inappropriate. You have no evidence that the RD has anywhere near the notability that you accord to it. That concludes the matter, and I am reluctant to start the whole discussion from scratch. JFW | T@lk 01:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Jeff, gald we're back on a first name basis!! Its debatable if a majority vote is a consensus, but if thats what you're hanging you hat on, fine. But, wait!! If my calender is correct, is 30 July the END of July??? I'm quite sure it is. And didn't you revert SEVERAL TIMES to get your way in MID July?? Yes, yes, I'm certain of it!! But thats OK, its the results that count. And rules, they only aplly some of the time, is that it? Steve kap (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You've been playing this "I'm going to call Jfdwolff 'Jeff' just to bug him" game for 3½ years now. He's made it clear his name isn't Jeff, and you've made it clear you're playing some bizarre game with this. See Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 3#Link to atheist site, Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 5#Ritual Decalogue / Exodus 34 v 28, Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 6#George Carlin). You'll refer to him as Jfdwolff or JFW from now on, nothing else. Understand? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My name is not Jeff, but if you prefer to call me by that name then go ahead. I don't really follow your argument. I applied the principles of WP:BRD - I made an edit, was reverted, then other contributors came along and supported my version by a large margin. In the process Slrubenstein, who is academically grounded in this area, provided pretty good evidence that the RD is by no means a widely supported theory. You have not brought evidence to the contrary, but rather try to find evidence that I have somehow broken the rules. If you feel that that is indeed the case then I would recommend you follow the formal dispute resolution process. This is my last post in this thread, as nothing new has come to light. JFW | T@lk 09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he's not going to call you Jeff. See above. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And JFW has been ref to people in the familiar, while not recipriating, for at least as long. And we came to an agreement. But, to JFW, agreements, like this agreement, and like the agrement on the "External links", are made to be broken. Steve kap (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not about any "agreement". There is no "agreement" here. You'll refer to him as JFW or Jfdwolff. That's all. And stop playing games. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I will call him JFW, and ask that he call me Steve_Kap, as he agreed to, until such time as JFW wants to go by his first name. Steve kap (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)