Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Section on Islam

Does anyone know where the "correspondence" between commandments and verses in the Quran came from? If no source comes forward I will remove this per WP:NOR. Zargulon (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

It's original research alright. A single high-profile secondary source would be helpful. JFW | T@lk 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

I feel that the bible critics' section should be after the religious interpretations sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zargulon (talk • contribs)

Agree, if only for chronological reasons. JFW | T@lk 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes.. and due weight..Zargulon (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

G-d vs. God vs. god

FYI: Wikipedia has a special Template:G-d for people who have religious scruples about typing the word God. The template allows the editor to type the word {{g-d}} with a hyphen in the edit window, but displays the correct WP:MOSCAPS form "God" in the article. The documentation recommends using substitution, rather than transclusion, in the form {{subst:g-d}} so it makes the change in the file when saved. There is no requirement to use that template in the talk pages, unless you want to avoid curiosity questions or if the hyphen form becomes a distraction resulting in off topic messages. Any editors finding the form G-d in articles, (not expressly talking about that form,) may make correction, but do not change words within quotes, (unless the quote source used a different form.)

Editors who do not believe in God, or believe in some other god or goddess, and prefer not to capitalize "God" may use that same template, since the template doesn't care if the letter "g" in the template is capitalized or not, but it is always capitalized when displayed in the article.
—Telpardec (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Extending auto archive clock. —Telpardec (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

New game plan

Welcome back. I trust everyone had a nice wikibreak and got a recharge of wikilove, and maybe even had some wikifun. I decided to put a temporary "straw boss" hat on and see if we can get things moving again. What I would like to see is everyone voluntarily put themselves on a one revert rule, (except obvious vandalism) and no BRD for awhile. (From my seat on the side lines it looks more like BRD stands for "Bonk! wRong you Dummy! :)

Instead of back and forth debate that too easily gets off topic, let's do something called one shot discussion. This is real simple. A proposal is made for a change to the page, and anyone who wants to participate in discussing the proposal gets one shot to give a good reason for either accepting it, or else offer a counter proposal supported by reason. The person who proposed the idea becomes the moderator and looks at the results. If one proposal is plainly head and shoulders above the others, the moderator so states, and asks for objections. If no objections, (within a reasonable time,) then the editor whose proposal was chosen makes the change. When there is no obvious better proposal, the moderator so states, and invites everyone to take one more shot. If a good idea rises up, the moderator states as above, and if no objections, an editor makes the change. If two shots fail, we put the proposal in the recycle bin for a week, and any editor who can improve it can then make a new proposal as above. Consensus is about quality of reasons, not quantity. Be concise. It seems appropriate to use single "bullet" indentation. Put enough powder behind it to make it fly.
(Triple click here, to be of good cheer. :) Telpardec (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW (By The Way), the one shot discussion method is intended only for difficult or controversial proposals that might be reverted. Also, the term reasonable time is undefined. Are there any editors available only one day per week that need for decisions to be delayed as much as 7 days before confirming?
(Triple-click is paragraph select – handy for grabbing diffs. :) Telpardec (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro proposal moved to bottom.

Past proposals

Some suggestions for changes to the article in previous sections of this talk page that were put on pause while we were distracted seem to be ready to go forward, since at least one other editor expressed agreement and there were no objections. One by Zargulon, agreed to by JFW, in the "Ordering of sections" section above "that the bible critics' section should be after the religious interpretations sections." I'm not sure what that is. I see a " Critical historians' interpretations" section in the index, is that it? (see #2 below) Zargulon, do you want to confirm the proposal, ask for objections against declaring the proposal to be consensus and carry it forward?

Another past suggestion that I'm OK with, was by JFW, that "It would be helpful if we could make a list of the actual content issues in this article so these can be resolved through consensus." Sounds like a plan to me. I'll start the To do list below. How about we number the ideas, and then <S>Strike</S> the items when completed or rejected?

Intro proposal

[Note: This section moved to page bottom from former location after "New game plan", due to concerns expressed that some editors may not be aware of the issue in this section. Telpardec (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)]

Please read "one shot discussion" guidelines before participating here. Thanks. Telpardec (talk)

(Don't forget your bullet * :)
The present summary sentence in the 2nd paragraph has been a sore spot ever since it appeared. Since we need to get the page protection lifted to make progress, my proposal is to simply remove the problem sentence for at least 30 days, and get to work fixing the problems in the body of the message. The intro (lead or lede) is supposed to be a concise summary of the body. We need to get some clothes on the body before we pick a hat. (Without the straw! :)

  • OK, there's my bullet. Section moderator hat on. Take your best shot. Telpardec (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. Its a bit of a run-on sentence to start with, and it summarizes the 10C in a rather incomplete, awkward way. Why not, just get rid of it. Steve kap (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This proposal appears to have consensus, with no objections. Let's give it another 24 hours and if no objection, it is ready to go. Thanks. Proposal moderator Telpardec (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I object. I didn't notice this proposal before, because you had filled the page with so much text. The lede will certainly have to have a summary of the Ten Commandments, and it shouldn't be removed simply because an editor objects to the capitalization of one word. Anyway, it's clear there's no consensus to remove the capitalization, particularly as WP:MOSCAPS explicitly states it should be capitalized, and it's unlikely that Steve kap will remove the capitalization again, now that he knows he'll be heading straight to an admin board the first time he does. Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for responding, and of course, one objection is enough to stop the clock. Please forgive me if I am miss-reading your comment, but you seem to be speaking through me to threaten another editor, and that troubles me. I'm still seeing occasional tension in some editors' comments in various places. That's my whole point in the above proposal, the problem sentence is still too hot to handle. (There are plenty of really "cool" edits we could be making. :)

Second, may I please direct everone's attention to the first section on this page: Talk:Ten Commandments#Unique aspects of the Sinaitic Revelation, and you will note that a section of text added by an editor was removed from the article to that section of this page for discussion, and I see a lot of calm reasoning in that discussion – maybe one little rough edge. That discussion ended the same day the first of the late reverts started. My proposal above is nearly the same: remove the problem sentence, but delay 30 days, or as soon as everyone calms down, (we're not writing in stone here,) to work out satisfactory wording here on the talk page, and meanwhile work on all the non-controversial problems with the page while our wounds heal. Capitalization is only the tip of the iceberg. There were NPOV issues with some editors, so that tells me that some readers of the article may also take issue with the article. When I changed the word "enacted" to "directed", it still didn't sound right to me, and I couldn't think of a way to re-phrase it. I lost count of how many dozens of different wordings have been proposed for that sentence. This isn't one tug of war – there are multiple ropes – and enough rope has been let out to pull us all up short. Let's work the problem people. Let's fix the body, so we have something to concisely summarize in the intro.

Third, I noticed in my guidelines in the New game plan for one shot discussion, that there is provision for what to do if there are no objections, but not what to do if there are. (Oops. Silly me, for thinking everyone would fall head over heels in love with my proposal. :)
So, quite simply, if there is one or more objections that have merit, (and the above objection has merit,) the moderator's first choice is to add any ideas to which ever proposal seems closest to best, state the proposal, and enter into round 2 of one shot discussion. An additional option if there is only one objection, is to give a suitable reason and request that the objector withdraw the objection. If the objection is withdrawn, the moderator calls for other objections, with the original time limit starting from zero. (minimum 24 hours) If the objection is not withdrawn, the objector instead takes a shot at round 2, (or round 3 as the case may be,) or states intent to abstain.

Intro proposal (round 2)
Sub header added 17:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

(Reminder: Use single * bullets, not multi : indentation.)

  • Revised proposal: The present summary sentence in the 2nd paragraph has been a sore spot ever since it appeared. Since we need to get the page protection lifted to make progress, my proposal is to simply remove the problem sentence for about 30 days for later revisal, and get to work fixing the problems in the body of the message. The intro (lead or lede) is supposed to be a concise summary of the body. We need to get some clothes on the body before we pick a hat. (Without the straw! :) The objector is requested to withdraw or start round 2. Thanks. Telpardec (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • No, the only issue here is that a couple of months ago Steve kap started trying to remove the capitalization of God without consensus, in defiance of WP:MOSCAPS. Given the inevitable consequences to him, he's unlikely to continue. There's no need to remove the summary, and no particular reason for doing so. Jayjg (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that the GOD version is currently used, inserted WHILE the debate was going on, with clearly no consensus for it. If you change for god to GOD, shouldn't you get a consensus first? Or does history start only when you say it does? And maybe these rules about consesus are for other people, not for you? Or maybe there is another explanation I haven't thought of. Steve kap (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
As has been pointed out already, it was you who kept removing the capitalization without consensus. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
...and without objection, untill events of late. And with explanantion. And it was Others that kept adding God without consensus, with not explanation, and with no consuses, and WITH objection. See the difference? Steve kap (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"without objection"? Why, then, did you have to continually revert in your change? Do you think that people kept removing your change because they supported it? Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
You might have read the "..untill events of late",, but no matter. And thank you. Thank you for explaining why your GOD should be inserted, while the debate is going on. I understand now why you wouldn't feel the need for consenses before making this change. Steve kap (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Your change was never accepted, which is why you kept having to revert people to try to enforce it. God was always capitalized in the article until you started trying to remove that capitalization. Why you did not feel the need for consensus on this is unclear. Please make more factual and accurate Talk: page statements. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Moderator note: Round 2 has started, since the objector has neither withdrawn nor expressed intent to abstain, but has taken one shot. The 48 hour clock started with the date/time of that shot. Remember to use bullets(*) not colon(:) indentation to take your best shot. Thanks. —Moderator Telpardec (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC))
You're not the "moderator" here, and never were. Please stop making that assertion. Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • reserved

Moderator note: The discussion phase has run more than 48 hours, so we are entering into the 24-hours objection phase as of 10:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC). Since round 2 was the final round, the clock will not be stopped by one objection as in round 1, but will go full course, to allow every editor involved in the recent controversy over the "problem sentence", participants and watchers, to weigh in with either an objection with stated reason(s) or no objection with or without comment. Please, no personal comments.

In my opinion the revised proposal with the goal of early lifting of page protection is still head and shoulders above any alternate proposal which would let the 2 week protection run full course with the possibility of an instant re-run of world war three reverts: the movie. Please, no personal comments. Be also advised that there is ongoing collaborative discussion in the New proposal section to work the wrinkles out of the wording of the problem sentence. If wording that everyone agrees to results, we don't have to go the full 30 days mentioned below, let's just keep the discussion out of the edit comment block of the page history. Thanks.

Revised proposal: The present summary sentence in the 2nd paragraph has been a sore spot ever since it appeared. Since we need to get the page protection lifted to make progress, my proposal is to simply remove the problem sentence for about 30 days for later revisal, and get to work fixing the problems in the body of the message. The intro (lead or lede) is supposed to be a concise summary of the body. We need to get some clothes on the body before we pick a hat. (Without the straw! :)

— the revised proposal

Please use a bullet(*) not colon(:) indentation, and bold your keyword(s) as my example below. Remember that consensus is not about quantity, but quality of reasons. Take your best shot. Thanks to everyone for their patience. —Moderator Telpardec (talk) 10:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You're not a "moderator", and never were. Please stop asserting that. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • No objection. Let's keep the problem sentence on the talk page until unity is reached. (We can do this! :) —Telpardec (talk)
Telpardec, you're not the "moderator" here, you have no authority to impose various odd time limits on discussions, and I've already objected above. Jayjg (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We have an agreed first line at the bottom of this page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Moderated discussion completed.

OK, Sorry for the delay. A monster toothache was trying to play king of the hill with my life, but Ibuprofen has taken the high ground and is well entrenched, and seems to have pacified Mr. Grumpy tooth.

Well, I see no bullet with bolded Objection, so the proposal has consensus and the change can be made to the article and page protection lifted, right? A moot point since it will be lifted very soon anyway, (at "11:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)"?), probably faster than an admin can respond to an {{edit protected}} request, and participation was a bit thin. So, the moderated discussion has run full course, in spite of some glitches, and OK, a little bit clunky guidelines. (Live and learn.)

And we also have a couple of messages with no bullet or bolded text. The second first: "bottom" refers to a message by the same author that was then at the bottom of the page and bottom of section Talk:Ten Commandments#Can we lift the page protection? Will some sysop help us out?. I have no idea what was "agreed" to there, so there is no need to speak further here.

And the other message, re: "not the 'moderator' here". First, each and every one of the above named editors made me a moderator when they chose to participate in a section set apart for moderated discussion that was plainly indicated as such with some simple guidelines, and no objections were stated at that time to me acting as the moderator in a limited role. When I saw that tacit approval was given me as moderator, I assumed said editors were acting in good faith by participating, and tried to accomodate concerns expressed in their feedback. I see no merit in an objection made after the fact. Sorry. However it does have merit toward the goal of refining the discussion process, so Thanks.

Odd time limits? Same thing. There was no objection to the round 1 objection phase being 24 hours, so I simply used the same time, except as noted in the parenthetical "minimum 24 hours" above, and the expression of my intent to let the 2nd objection round "go full course, to allow every editor" to state an objection or no objection. The first round was only stopped to accomodate the concern that one or more editors may have overlooked the section, so it was moved to the bottom of the page, where most people look for new messages. Note also the phrase: "If no objections, (within a reasonable time,)" in the guidelines (16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)), and the next day note (16:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)) which said: "Also, the term reasonable time is undefined. Are there any editors available only one day per week that need for decisions to be delayed as much as 7 days before confirming?" No editor expressed any concern or objected to a shorter time. I see no merit in an objection made after the fact. Sorry. But again, this also may help to refine the discussion process, so Thanks.

And re: "already objected above." Indeed. But that applied to round 1. Besides the above noted accomodation, the concern about a rigid 30 day span had merit, and was taken into account with the revised proposal and the explanation above it. There is nothing binding in that time span. Editors would have been free to voluntarily wait until the body of the article was in better shape before the intro (lede) re-write, or otherwise.

Since the discussion is closed, it is time to move on. Thanks to everyone for your consideration and patience. While I was spending extra time here, I've developed a backlog of things to do elsewhere, so I may be slow to reply to any concerns on my talk page. OK, well, that's all folks. It's a wrap. See new "hindsight" section below for feedback. Have a great time tracking down things to fix in the article.

—Former moderator Telpardec (talk) signing off at 12:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I appreciate that you are trying to help here, but no-one "made you a moderator" by commenting in a section you created, and you really need to stop collapsing discussions because you no longer want to discuss the issues in them. Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro proposal - hindsight

The Intro proposal moderated discussion has ended. This section is for any after thoughts, or constructive criticism that might tend toward refining our discussion participation with the eventual goal of improving the article. Thanks to everyone for your patience. Happy editing!
—Telpardec (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Unique aspects of the Sinaitic Revelation

An user added the following:

The Sinai revelation is unique in the history of religion. In all other revelation narratives G-d speaks to one or two people who then spread the message to others. However, according to the text of the Torah, G-d spoke to the whole nation of Israel; some three million people. Jewish tradition asserts that the whole nation of Israel heard G-d speak the first two of the ten commandments. It has been argued that national revelation is a claim that can only be made if it is true since if false the claimant immediately reveals himself as a liar.

This, of course, is written from a traditionalist POV (including the partisan spelling of the name "G-d"). But the argument exists, and ISBN 1560621753 ("The obvious proof", Robinson & Steinman 1993) is probably the main work that discusses this. It has subsequently appeared in other related works, such as ISBN 1568710992 (Kelemen, 1996). It is called "the historical argument" in ISBN 0873066405 (Coopersmith ed, 1993). The main premise here is whether it is possible to falsify a historical claim of a revelatory event involving 100,000s of people. How does one go about "inserting" such a narrative into a culture? I'd say this is worthwhile including, despite the obvious problems this will create for those who dispute the historicity of the Sinaitic revelation. JFW | T@lk 18:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My opinion would be to leave it out.. I don't feel it's notable outside Jewish homily, and added to this is the fact that, as you pointed out, it refers to "the Sinai revelation", which in this context means the whole law (including the oral law), and not specifically the ten commandments. But if a case for notability and relevance can be made from reliable sources, then fine, keep it and make the language neutral, and turn G-d into God. Zargulon (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the text quoted above states correctly that according to Jewish tradition only the first two of the Ten Commandments were given to the entire nation. That means that it is relevant here. I think the issue of notability is reasonably well demonstrated by the several sources that I have been able to identify. JFW | T@lk 04:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I think it will require considerable care to present this accurately, neutrally and in a fashion that is relevant to this article, but good luck. Zargulon (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it is for readers to judge whether the unique aspects of the Sinai revelation narrative is interesting or not but I do think its relevant (that's why I wrote it). Perhaps it belongs somewhere else,(maybe a separate page devoted entirely to the Sinai revelation narrative)?

One point I'll agree on, I should perhaps have used the phrase "Sinai revelation narrative" in place of the term "Sinai revelation". But, overall, I'm not entirely sure what is so problematic about this entry that it merited deletion rather than amendment? For example, regardless of whether it actually happened, the claim of national revelation itself is unique in religion or at least so far as I am aware. Perhaps I ought to have referenced this?

Again, irrespective of whether the Torah accurately depicts events, it is clear that the text of the Torah is making the claim that G-d spoke the commandments to the whole nation of Israel. I think I have been clear that I am merely reporting that which the text unequivocally states. If you want an entry entitled "ten commandments" then an accurate account of their claimed origin is surely relevant information? Regardless of its veracity, the Torah claims that G-d spoke to the whole nation of Israel at mount Sinai; it doesn't claim that G-d spoke to Moses alone. Yet, the article as it stands give exactly this impression, which makes this entry as it stands both inaccurate and misleading. (Philosophystephen (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC))

Is there any evidence that this claim, that god spoke to millions at once, is a claim unique to this 'revelation'. Is is posible that, of the 100s of thousands of religouns out there, their might be one that makes a similiar claim? In any case, it would have to be God, not G-d. Steve kap (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
BTW, if we are going to talk about this claim as 'history',, not legend, not myth, not tradition, but 'history', we might need more evidence for it than what any thinking person not brought up in that faith would call the very, very, very, very, BAD epistemology that the "obvious proof" represents. I mean, come on, really? Steve kap (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I was expecting your incredulous response. I think the onus is on you to demonstrate that there is another cultural tradition that has a similar narrative (mass revelation), rather than saying instinctively (and unverifiably) that these are bound to exist.
I'm a bit confused about your second comment. What exactly are you trying to convey, apart from incredulity? JFW | T@lk 04:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Good point JFW, I guess any claim is true unless proven otherwise, not matter how unlikely it sounds. And, once someone makes such a claim, I guess others are duty bound to prove it false, or accept it as true.
As to my 2nd point, I think I made it plainly, but I'd be glad to make it again: The idea that this would be present as history is a joke. The "obvious proof" is the stuff that historians laugh at. Anyone can make a claim. And this claim can come in the form that hundreds/thousands of years ago, millions of people reported hearing something. It doesn't mean millions of people heard something, and it doesn't make the claim true. Theologist may be impressed by such stuff, but that's about where it ends. If you don't get the point, I could go on.
But, if you want to present this as an example of close theological reasoning, I would have no objection. Steve kap (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Steve that the argument itself does not have any objective value or interest.. its premises are not objectively true, its inferences are not rigorous and the 'uniqueness' it seeks to prove is not objectively defined. It may still be of note as one strand of Jewish discourse about the commandments. Zargulon (talk) 09:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
We don't need to say that it's true or historically sound, but simply that this concept exists and is being believed by people. NPOV phrasing, I believe, can achieve this. JFW | T@lk 15:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
As you probably know, this argument is one of the many built on the so-called 'Kuzari principle' and Halevi's Kuzari. It might be as well to start by referring to these. The Kuzari is generally classed as an exercise in apologetics and rhetoric, rather than a work of philosophy; it was a fictionalization of a Jewish sage trying to advocate his religion. I'm not sure anyone actually "believes" (accepts?) the argument, or ever did, and if so, I'm not sure how that belief could be reliably demonstrated. Zargulon (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
If Halevi already formulated this argument it is probably quite important that it's mentioned! I don't think the style of the Kuzari is relevant to the discussion. Contrary to your assertion, the Kuzari is accepted as a theological source in Jewish scholarship. Apologetics is a Christian concept, and the only real Jewish apologetics can only be found in the historical disputations e.g. between Nachmanides and Pablo Christiani. I would not regard the Kuzari as a work of apologetics! JFW | T@lk 16:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I differ somewhat. Apologetics originated in pre-Christian Greek rhetoric, was used substantially by Christians but also found its way into Judaism, just as many interpretative methods used by Jewish sources originated in Islam. I don't know what you mean here by 'a Christian concept'.. to me, the holy trinity is a 'Christian concept', it doesn't make sense to say apologetics is.. people write apologetics about all sorts of things. I am not an expert on how the Kuzari is taught in every dark corner of every kollel, but when you say 'accepted as a theological source' I think you should appreciate the difference between 'accepted as a reliable source to substantiate arguments' and 'all its lines of reasoning and conclusions are accepted with in Judaism and constitute dogma or normative belief'. Also I don't think the Kuzari explicitly makes the argument itself, rather it gives rise to the "Kuzari principle" which has been (ab)used to make the argument. Zargulon (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's try again: are you saying that the Kuzari's format invalidates it as a source of bona fide Jewish theology? Of course you know that works like the Kuzari are not studied much at all in kollels, but it is quoted extensively (with or without attribution) by later authors, such as S.R. Hirsch.
The Kuzari is an apologetic which is relevant to Jewish theology. Apologetics are not invalid of themselves and there are cases when they can be constructively used as sources, but masking their apologetic nature when doing can produce a deceptive and invalid result.
Starting from the beginning, this material claims that the mass nature of the revelation has been used to prove the uniqueness of Judaism's revelation. The original Kuzari version of this (which merely aims at showing Judaism's greatness) is widely regarded as directed against the competing monotheistic religions, which were themselves constantly challenging Judaism in the theological arena. My main initial concern is that this social context will be missed, and the uniqueness argument will be presented as having been spontaneously inspired, whereas in fact the external factors which caused it are the most important part of the story. That is the way it looks to me that things will pan out at the moment. I hope I am wrong. Zargulon (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
The term "Kuzari principle" is new to me. Have you got any sources related to the subject in addition to the books I referred to above? JFW | T@lk 18:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Starting from the beginning, this material claims that the mass nature of the revelation has been used to prove the uniqueness of Judaism's revelation. The original Kuzari version of this (which merely aims at showing Judaism's greatness) is widely regarded as directed against the competing monotheistic religions, which were themselves constantly challenging Judaism in the theological arena. My main initial concern is that this social context will be missed, and the uniqueness argument will be presented as having been spontaneously inspired, whereas in fact the external factors which caused it are the most important part of the story. That is the way it looks to me that things will pan out at the moment. I hope I am wrong. Zargulon (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, with the understanding that they are for your information only and that I have not made any attempt to judge whether they satisfy WP:RS. My first encounter was a lecture by Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb from Ohr Somayach's lecture tape archives [1] Unfortunately I don't remember which lecture it was.. I made a brief attempt just to to figure out but it was too hard. Nonetheless you can read what Gottlieb and others have to say about it by looking at the top hits from the google search on 'Kuzari principle'. Zargulon (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you did not break up my posts when responding. This is confusing.
I'm not sure if I understand your concerns about "external factors" and the social context.
It seems that Dale Gottlieb has coined the term "Kuzari principle". I'm not sure whether it is any more current than the "obvious proof" etc. JFW | T@lk 03:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't my intention to confuse you and I will try to remember not to break up posts when dealing with you in future.
I would be happy to try to resolve your specific misunderstandings if you are open to that.
I personally think that "Kuzari principle" avoids the possible misinterpretation of it really being an obvious proof, but you are welcome to use any term that you can support with sources. Are you disputing that mass revelation arguments of this kind in Judaism substantively had their birth in the Kuzari? Zargulon (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the mass relevation argument to say whether it should be called "Kuzari principle" or anything else. I have provided a number of sources; they do not use a consistent terminology. I do not have access to Robinson & Steinman to state with certainty whether they refer to the Kuzari, but it seems Kelemen and Coopersmith do not. I would not want to use the name "Kuzari principle" on the basis of Gottlieb's article alone. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I suggest we suspend this discussion until a later date and I wish you luck in adding something. Zargulon (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't planning to add anything yet, but will see if I can persuade Philosophystephen (talk · contribs) to revise his addition. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The social context of HaLevi's argument is perhaps interesting but has no bearing on its validity. In any case HaLevi wasn't interested in showing that Judaism is great but rather that it is true. Whether he or those who have developed the argument, such as Rabbi Dr Gottlieb, have something convincing is not strictly relevant. What did you find difficult about Gottlieb's argument, it seems fairly straightforward to me. Just out of interest, I worked for many years in a philosophy department and not one of my colleagues could come up with a sensible refutation. I've seen attempts to refute this argument but they are, in all honesty, pathetic. Most commentators appear not to have understood the argument. I am happy to rework this entry but don't wish to waste my time by writing something that is immediately removed (Philosophystephen (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC))
Hi Stephen, can you try to point out where an editor said that they found anything difficult about Dr. Gottlieb's argument, or where an editor said that the social context of Halevi's argument has bearing on its validity? I appreciate the fact that you don't want to invest effort in writing something that will be summarily deleted, and from your contributions so far, my assessment is that this would be the likely outcome. Can I suggest you leave it with JFD and myself, who have perhaps a little more experience of the idiosyncracies of what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Zargulon (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, point taken regards the validity issue, that was mentioned to clarify. As for finding something difficult about Rabbi Dr Gottleib's article, that was based on the following "I made a brief attempt just to to figure out but it was too hard". Having re-read the comments, I think I have identified the source of my misunderstanding.

Coming back to some earlier points, I believe Rabbi Dr Gottlieb coined the phrase "Kuzari principle" as a way of demonstrating his indebtedness to HaLevi in developing the argument. Keleman doesn't use this term but his argument as it appears in "Permission to Believe" and in various audio lectures is essentially a variation of the same. Although the argument has resurfaced in modern times, it has a long-standing acceptance in traditional Judaism. Rambam makes use of this argument in "The guide for the Perplexed" IIRC, where he argues that Jews accept Judaism as true not because of the miracles during the exodus but rather because G-d spoke.

I'd like to see you flesh out your following statement "its premises are not objectively true, its inferences are not rigorous and the 'uniqueness' it seeks to prove is not objectively defined." As I said, I have discussed this with colleagues down the years and none have been able to offer a refutation. Specifically, I'd like to know what you consider the premises of the argument to be? Incidentally, this is where most people go wrong. (Philosophystephen (talk) 10:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC))

Hi Stephen - I would be happy to discuss my statement which you refer to, but this is not the appropriate forum. Perhaps we could continue that strand on my talk page.
The discussion to have here is what should be added to the Ten Commandments article. We can have that discussion, without presuming the validity or otherwise of Gottlieb's, Halevi's or related arguments, if you would like to. The main issues for me are:
  • Is the argument you wish to present specifically relevant to the biblical passage referred to as "the Ten Commandments", rather than to "the revelation at Sinai" in general which happens to include the Ten Commandments, and rather than to everything in the Torah which was witnessed by the entire Jewish nation (including red sea parting and other miracles)? (i.e. should it go on a different page)
  • Can the argument be referenced to an objective secondary source, that is, one which describes this argument in review, rather than seeking to support, refute or develop it?
  • Is the argument you wish to present notable, i.e. is it one of the things that would spring to scholars' minds when you mentioned 'The Ten Commandments'?
I would be interested in your answers to these points. Zargulon (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
If you editors want to include what some say is this unquie mass revelation, should we lay the groundwork in the "revelation" section? As it stands, it talks about the 1 set of stones, the 2nd set of stones, but not the 'spoken to the people' part. Which I believe is what is ref to a mass revelation. Steve kap (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
We probably need to flesh out what needs to be added before deciding where to put it. The article is getting rather bloated, and there is a lot of repetition and duplication of some information. BTW: Good catch on the "Revelations" A without B thing.
—Telpardec (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Message to extend auto-archive clock on this section. The above idea still has possibilities. —Telpardec (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Prophecize!

I realize that there is some sort of controversy preventing anyone from editing this post, but is there any chance that some higher power has access and can remove the ridiculous non-word "prephecize" from the article. It's in the second section. Ctrl + F "prophecize" should do the trick of locating it. 128.146.179.151 (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be the spelling change the IP user above wants:
Old: prophets had begun to prophecize the coming of the messiah
New: prophets had begun to prophesy of the coming of the messiah
Change "prophecize" to "prophesy of".
The above is located in section: Critical historians' interpretations
the 5th paragraph, 4th sentence or thereabouts.
Have a nice day. —Telpardec (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

YesY Done --wL<speak·check> 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Tenth anniversary of Ten Commandments article

Today, 27 July 2011, marks the tenth anniversary of the Ten Commandments article on Wikipedia. The first version was: 27 July 2001, 21:26:58 by 205.180.71.xxx. (Ten Commandments - Article revision statistics). "Ten_Commandments has been viewed 208124 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 645 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org." (Wikipedia article traffic statistics)

Previous versions:

Compiled by Telpardec (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we lift the page protection? Will some sysop help us out?

Two sections up I proposed this: "The Ten Commandments identify their source as the Lord God, who, in the Biblical narrative, directed the Exodus ... " as the new lead for the contentious paragraph. Two editors involved in the conflict accept this, and a third does not oppose it. I am a party o the conflict so I cannot make any changes. Can an uninvolved admin look at the reason for protection and decide whether this edit can be made, and, if so, whether that satisfies the conditions for lifting the protection? Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 13:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't think there was a call to protect it in the first place. Zargulon (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree. I didn't know that "Lord God" was under real consideration. Lord God? Really? So its a fact that he is Lord God now? In wikipedias voice we say such? Lord means ruler. And it may well be that some people think that there is a god, and this god is their ruler. But I'm not sure its established fact. Not just yet, anyway. Steve kap (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
We should absolutely not say anything that appears to be endorsing Christianity. I don't see what's wrong with the current version. Twin Bird (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened to "I support Slrubenstein's suggestion. Steve kap (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)" For a moment you had actually tricked me into believing you are editing in good faith. Now it is clear that you are contentious simply for the sake of contention and have no real interest at all in compromise and collaboration. The only think that is "in wikipedia's voice" is the claim that the Biblical narrative says x. Given that we are writing about the 10 commandments, it is inevitable that "wikipedia" is going to say that this is according to the Bible. Fully in accord with our policies. And you even agreed! Nothing changed since then, except the possibility of actual progress. what a charlatan. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

No bad faith, just some careless reading an inconsistancey on my part. Sorry for that. Get ride of the "lord" and start with "The biblical narative" and I'm fine. Steve kap (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

But kwame won't accept it. And, it doesn't make sense. the whole point of adding Lord (capital L) is because "the Lord God" is the character who, according to the Biblical narrative, is doing the action. We use capital letters because it is a name or title, but we are providing the Bibles POV in any case, and not "Wikipedia's." Take away the "Lord" and we are back to an endless debate over God/god proper noun/common noun. I have no problem saying "According to the Biblical narrative, the Lord God who directed the Exodus is the source of the Ten Commandments" if you want the Biblical narrative up front, but "the Lord God" is the name of the character in the Biblical narrative. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Lord isn't a name like Bill or Frank. It has a meaning on its own. It means ruler. Can't speak for Kawmi, but I think his issue is same as mine. Using God, as a name, before you've indicated which god your talking about, as if everyone should know which your talking about, is the issue. Its bias. If you start by establishing that your talking in terms of the Jewish tradition (which includes the christian, in this context, I think), I think your fine with using God. Steve kap (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
BTW, the name of the character that your ref to, in the bible, isn't "the Lord God". Its Yahwey. Which IS a proper noun. Which IS a name like Bill or Frank. "The Lord God" is a particular English rendering, following a particular Jewish tradition not to use the name Yahwey when spoken. How "Yahwey" is too "techincal" (what ever could that mean of a name?) for readers of this page, but not so for reader for "I am the Lord your God" page, or the NJB or WEB, I'll never know. It makes me suspect that said tradition is being imposed on this page, which would not be proper. Steve kap (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Without weighing in on the content dispute, the proper avenue to request page unprotection is WP:RFUP. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

"Lord" is a title, like "the Lord Chancellor" or "the Lord Mayor" as in Michael Bear, Lord Mayor - you do not object to that, do you? Wait, you aren't saying Bear is lord over ME? How dare we say in Wikipedia's voice that he LORD over ME!!! Oh wait, we are just saying that according to the UK constitution he is Lord Mayor over London. Okay.

"Lord" doesn't mean ruler, and it certainly does not mean that Michale Bear is ruler over you or me. Is that really what you thought, Steven?

The point is: if we are going to provide what the Bible says, then we have to provide what the bible says, which is providing what they bible says, which is the Biblical account, according to the Bible. And the character who is the principal actor here is "the Lord God." In oral recitations, the word "lord" is used, and in conventional translations, including the best selling ones, the word "lord" is used. It is the convention. You want to violate the convention? When you are dictator of the world you can command everyone to say what yo believe. In the meantime, WP should reflect what most people say.

Jesus, Christ, watching "King Lear with you must be a royal pain the but. Do you stand up every time Lear appears and shout out "He's not my king!!" Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, a difference that you might not have thought of, is that King Lear is fiction. And the charactors in King Lear are obviously speaking in the context of particular history. But, and you might not be aware of this, there are people that acutally believe that this "God" charactor you reffer to is Lord over us all. Thats fine that they believe that, if they can manage to not bother me with such foolishness, but I don't want Wikipedia, which is NOT fiction, to make such statement. Steve kap (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that "The Lord God" isn't really used as a name in the same way, but almost as a kind of emphatic pleonasm; when not trying to emphasize "His" majesty, it's always "God" or "the Lord." 23:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You are not making any sense at all:

  • "isn't really used as a name in the same way," in the same way as what? you mean, in the same way as "King" in King Lear? How?
  • "but almost as a kind of emphatic pleonasm;" Well, is this i=your own personal interpretation of the Bible? Do you have a reliable source? I have read other explanations, why are you privileging this one? In any case, this article is not about the phrase "the Lord god" where (subtracting your original research) we could discuss the reasons for using two words. In this article we are just writing about the Ten commandments, and need to put them into their narrative context, and ... well, the biblical narrative says "the Lord god" so we just need to be accurate, right?
  • "when not trying to emphasize "His" majesty, it's always "God" or "the Lord."" No, no it is not. Some people do not believe in god, some people do not use the word Lord, it is not always this way, I am not sure what you mean, some people worship Krishna, not "the Lord," some people pray to Jesus - what do you mean "always?"

Your personal feelings about the gods is a personal matter. Here, all that matters are the conventions of the Biblical narrative, which is what this article is about.

It is clear you have no objections based on WP policy. Your objections are just your own prejudices. Deal with them on your own time. We need to write an article

(up next: steven kap complains that we call them "commandments" "HOW DARE WE USE WIKIPEDIA'S VOICE TO COMMAND READERS? I object to calling them commandments, who says it is right to cammand anyone> I am not commaned, i REFUSE to let you command me, let's change it to "thinkgs" which is my translation of the Hbrew anyway I mean in Hebrew it does not call them "commandments" so let's change the title of the article!!!!") Slrubenstein | Talk 00:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

When you not only resort to personal attacks, but invent ridiculous positions that the other person might hold, though there is no indication that he does, then it becomes obvious that you cannot argue the issue on its merits. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Kwame, i apologize that I misread you, I am glad you approve the proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My dear friend. Are there not enough things that we honestly disagree on, without you inventing position for me that I didn't take, so you can disagree with me some more? Why not address the points that I've made, and have a reasoned arguement? Steve kap (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

God vs. god

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This section is now closed due to consensus flame out. See "New game plan" section. Telpardec (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In a biblical context "God" is always capitalized when referring to the Judeo-Christian deity, but not capitalized when referring to anyone else to whom the word "god" is applied, for example: "And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet." (Exodus 7:1) Note that "prophet" is not capitalized in the Bible, except one place where the people refer to Jesus as "the Prophet" in John 7:40.

— Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)
It's very simple. Local consensus does not over-rule the global consensus of WP:MOSCAPS. The capitalization debate belongs in another forum. Let's leave the lid on this skillet fire so it doesn't flare up again, and let's have a new game plan. My talk page is available for questions. Thanks for your cooperation. Telpardec (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

From the article: "The Ten Commandments identify their source as the God who directed the Exodus; and they prohibit having other gods before him". The "God" of the ten commandments self-identified as: "the LORD thy God",(Ex.20:2) so obviously that is not talking about "god(s) in the generic" as one editor supposed, nor is it "referring to *a* god" other than the LORD as another editor supposed, but is plainly talking about the God who is called the LORD.

1 Kings 18:39 And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.

In the Ten_Commandments#Islam section, we see this: "There is no other god beside Allah." (Qur'an 47:19) The word "god" is not capitalized there for two reasons. It appears after the word "other", indicating it is not referring to the primary deity, and more importantly it is a part of quoted text, which editor's should not change without a really really good reason.
—Telpardec (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thats as may be. But in the context of "The Ten Commandments identify their source as the god who directed the Exodus", the word god is clearly not being used as a name. Now, we could say "The Ten Commandments identify their source as God", but that would display some Chritian/Jewish centric bias. Many religions call their god "God", and to assume that the reader would also shows bias. My suggestion is to use the Jewish god's proper name, Yahwey, but apparently this term is too "techincal", and besides, there is no agreement on how it should be pronounced or spelled, (unlike the rest of the bible translated from Hebrew, I suppose). So clearly its a bad option. Steve kap (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought of another way to put it that might be more clear: in the sentence "The Ten Commandments identify their source as the god who directed the Exodus", the god that is going reffered to, at the point in the sentence that the word "god" appears, has not been identified. Its only the end of the sentence that identifes the god as what Christians and Jews and others might reffer to as God. I hope that helps explains my meaning :-) Steve kap (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I rather agree with Steve, or with his conclusion at least. Zargulon (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I've re-written the sentence in a way that accomodates both views, and employs the appropriate template designed specifically for this usage. Jayjg (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I appreciate the effort to reach a solution, I don’t much care for Jayjg’s edits. To use GOD to mean the god Yahweh show a certain amount of Christian/Jewish centric bias. As if the only “real” god is their god. You have to understand that other people call THEIR gods God, and THEY think that theirs is the only “real” one.
Having said that, in other context, I have no problem calling this god “God”, as long as the meaning is clear. It’s only in the context of identifying which god did this or that do I have the objection. Steve kap (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I don't see how that helps. If it's going to be "the god who directed the Exodus", then it needs to be l.c. because it's not a proper noun. Or we could simply use a proper noun in Yahweh/Jehovah. Either one works for me (though I suspect that "Yahweh" is somewhat obscure outside theological circles). But GOD still asserts that Jehovah is the god, something I don't believe we accept re. other deities. — kwami (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I think you are both making a mistake in trying to use Wikipedia to correct the English language. You are perfectly entitled to not use "God" or "Lord" etc. on your own account, and to try to persuade others not to use these expressions on the grounds that they are obsolete or convey inherent bias. Maybe you will succeed and future usage will be different. But WP reflects current usage. Zargulon (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
There's no reform here. In English we capitalize proper nouns. When "God" is a proper noun, we capitalize it. When it's not a proper noun, we don't capitalize it. If you have evidence that "God" is capitalized in religion-neutral sources when it's not a proper noun, please provide it. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You didn't read what I wrote. I agree with your rule for capitalizing, or not capitalizing, God. I don't agree that we should decide whether or not to use 'God' based on your opinion that it has inherent bias, rather than based on how people generally use it. Zargulon (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Then why not use "Allah"? Hundreds of millions of people use that. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Allah is an Arabic word; we use the English word here. Jayjg (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm told that graduates of Harvard reffer to it at "the school", as if Harvard is the only school worth mentioning. British golf fans call the British open "the open", with the same implication. I'm sure we can all see the bias an exlusivity in those usages. Its fine for co-religious to reffer to their particular god as "God". But Wikipedia is written for a more general audience. And its language is supposed to be NPOV.Steve kap (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I'm fine with the term "God" elsewhere, where it makes sense and the context makes it clear that it is a local definition. It's just that here we're establishing which god God is, so the word "God" is meaningless. — kwami (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
We're not "we're establishing which god God is" here, we're explaining what the Ten Commandments are. We've been over this above; the general reader understands what is meant by God, and the details of comparing Hebrew, Canaanaite, etc. gods belong in the detail of specific articles on the subject. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No, you are insisting that your god is the god. You are not describing a text where Jehovah is simply referred to as "God". We will either use a proper name or a common name, but not an ungrammatical hybrid. As you said above, we use English here. So which shall it be, "the god" or Jehovah/Yahweh? Or some other phrasing entirely? — kwami (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
My god? I haven't expressed any such religious beliefs (or indeed, any religious beliefs at all); don't refer to me again. In English the god of the Bible (and Ten Commandments) is normally referred to as "God", so we will use the common English name, as we use English here. It will be GOD. Jayjg (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course the god of the Bible is "God" in English when we use it as a name. Do you not understand what a proper noun is? When it's a proper noun, we capitalize. When it's a common noun, we don't capitalize. You should have learned that in the third grade. I've asked for refs if this is an exception, but you have not provided any. Therefore we follow English punctuation rules. If you want something different, find a ref to support your argument.
For example, "The God of Israel" is capitalized because it's a title and therefore a proper name. But effectively saying "the god who issued the Ten Commandments was God" is at best uninformative. If you want to identify a particular god, you provide a name or a title. You don't just call him "God". I mean, we could say "the god of Islam is God", "the god of the Ewe is God", etc, but that adds nothing to the text. And the all caps is at least as obscure to the average reader as "Yahweh" would be. — kwami (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
"Yahweh" is a foreign language technical term; we use common English terms here instead. The common English translation used is actually "the Lord", or "the LORD", or similar. The lede actually refers to "the LORD, who directed the Exodus", so it's hardly the tautology you pretend. Are you arguing that, for example, YHWH issued one set of Ten Commandments, while Elohim issued a different set? Or that one effected the Exodus, while another issued the Ten Commandments? Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree about "Yahweh", which is why I've never supported it. But its English version, Jehovah, is used for the Judeo-Christian god, regardless of whether the text says YHWH or Elohim, as I'm sure you're aware. — kwami (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Now you're back to pushing "the LORD"? This is ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm hardly "pushing" anything, and the consensus above was against the kind of game-playing in the lede that you're advocating. Jayjg (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The consensus is against the kind of partisan game playing that you're advocating. We don't refer to Jehovah as "the Lord God" in JC articles any more than we add "Peace be upon Him" in Islamic articles. We're supposed to at least pretend to be objective here. — kwami (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Both versions of the ten commandments identify the entity that authors the commandments with two different words, one of which is conventionally translated in English as "God" and the other of which is conventionally translated as The Lord. I think is is important to use both, because both religious commentators and critical commentators consider the distinction highly significant (although of course in very different ways and for very different reasons). Both religious and critical commentators also have a good deal to say about what these different words actually mean, and what the Hebrews believed. Personally, I would not mind if this article provided a summary of both EA Speiser's and Rashi's commentaries on these passages. But, someone else will have to do that. In the meantime, the question you guys are debating right now is simply what words to use to identify the entity who acts in these passages. I do not understand why this of all things is a matter of contention. We should refer to this entity as the Lord God, following the source.
Some editors seem to think that this in some way implies that Wikipedia endorses the belief that there is only one God, and that this God is the Jewish God. How silly! I suggest you read our NPOV and V policies. Wikipedia never makes claims about the truth, only views of the truth. Now, what the authors of these passages really believed, in their using the words translated as "God" and "Lord" is a matter of ongoing discussion for some. But all we are saying is that in the view of the text, the lord God took the Children of Israel out of the land of Egypt and revealed the Ten Commandments at Mt. Sinai. That is all we are saying. Do you really think using lowercase god instead of upper-case god makes a difference? If we use lowercase god are we suggesting that there are in fact many gods? Do you really think we are thus telling people that it is true, there really are many gods, the Lord being only one of them? Isn't your polytheism as much a view as someone else's monotheism? Look, we are not telling anyone that there "really" is one God — or that there are many gods. This is simply not a matter for discussion. It is not relevant here, it is not Wikipedia's place to say monotheism or polytheism or atheism is "the truth." We provide views, never the truth. The view of the author of this text is that someone or something that is conventionally translated as "the Lord God" did certain things. That is what the text says. We are just telling people what the text says. Why is there even a debate about this? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
If we're using "the Lord God" as a title, and a title is appropriate in the context, that's fine by me. I object to the ungrammatical transcription of a common noun as a proper noun in order to avoid bruising people's religious sensitivities. We don't say "the God Who gave His ...", but "the god who gave his ...". — kwami (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, "the Lord God" seems a bit cumbersome to me. Don't people normally just say 'God' in this context? What source are your referring to? Zargulon (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
But we're identifying the god here. You don't just identify a god as "God" or "the Lord", any more than you would identify a participant in Hindu scriptures as "God" or "the Lord". — kwami (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Except that the conventional name of the Judeo-Christian god in English is "God". Hindus don't describe their deity/deities as "God", but rather as Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, the Trimurti, etc. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@Zargulon: The Lord God sounds cumbersome to me to, but it happens to be what the text itself says. Sometimes the Torah does not use this cumbersome phrase. For example, Genesis 3 uses this cumbersome phrase, "Lord God," Genesis 4 just uses "Lord," and Genesis 5 just uses "God." Scholars from across the theological/ideological/theoretical spectrum consider these distinctions meaningful, although as I said, in different ways and for different reasons. Since the text makes these distinctions, so should be.
@kwame: As to capitalization, I do not know what the conventions are for Sanskrit texts. Different languages have different translation conventions. With Sanskrit, we should follow whatever the scholarly conventions are. With Hebrew, we should follow whatever the scholarly conventions are. We do not make this decision, we follow convention. These words are conventionally translated from Hebrew using capital letters. If kwame and I ever get into a discussion over Sanskrit texts I promise to take the exac same position: we follow the convention. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The difference with the OT is that God has already been introduced; it's also within a particular religious framework. Neither is the case for this article. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@Slrubenstein: Actually, most English versions just translate the name as "the LORD".
@kwami: It's within the framework of the English language, in which the common name for the Biblical deity is "God". Jayjg (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the *proper* name, or actually title, of the biblical deity is "God". It's not a common noun no matter how often you claim it is. We don't operate by magic, where repeating a phrase makes it true. If you want to demonstrate your point, you need to provide references. Which of course you know, and are simply ignoring. — kwami (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
The last part of your comment was about me, not article contents. Don't do that again. Any comments that discuss me in any way will be considered to have zero relevant semantic content and ignored. We're not going down that "violation of WP:CIVIL in every comment" road again. Jayjg (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
@kwame: God is never "introduced" in the Torah; he/she/it just appears in the first line. Also, as for the Torah being within a religious framework, speak for yourself. I know that there are millions of people who may have been introduced to the torah within a religious framework, but off the top of my head I can imagine at least eight different religious frameworks, some of which have extremely conflicting views of "God." And what about the others? Believe it or not, many people are not religious, or have spiritual beliefs utterly unrelated to the torah. What framework do they read it in? Moreover, we have no idea what the actual framework was when this story was first composed and circulated. So you seem to be making lots of assumptions that don't hold for other people, and do not necessarily hold for the text. Anyway, now you are suggesting that people who look up "the Ten Commandments" article will not have heard of "God?" So how are you proposing we rewrite the first sentence? "God, who some believe to be a god...?" Slrubenstein | Talk 21:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but by this point he *has* been introduced, by everything that came before. Your framework points are irrelevant: regardless of what people believe about God or the Torah, you can't seriously argue that the Torah is not a religious document. As for the first sentence, I have no problem with it, as it's not defining God. — kwami (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Kwami - I think you are confusing "common name" (=usual name, referring to WP:COMMON) with "common noun" (the part of speech which is not a proper noun). Zargulon (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
@kwame - I am saying texts mean as many different meanings as people give them. For many people it is most definitely not a religious text. Do you consider The Iliad a religious texts? It is filled with gods (the small g does not mean that the gods aren't real, only that there are many of them; in the Torah, Jews have only one God, so he is capitalized, even though he does not exist. G/g is not about true/false). What about the laws of physics? For Einstein and Hawking these are religious texts, although their religion is not that of the Yahwist, nor of Homer. So what? How does this affect how we write an article? The rules are always the same: we follow NPOV, NOR, V, and follow our style guide when Enlgish language conventions are unclear. Now, you are using this page as a chat-room, which violates policy and is disruptive. It is time to use this page constructively. So tell me which policy Jayjg's edit violates, and how. If you cannot, let's move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now you are engaging in bullshit. Discussing an article does not violate WP rules; you're effectively arguing that disagreeing with you is "chat" and therefore a violation.
If you think the laws of physics are religious texts, then you either have no understanding of religion, or no understanding of physics. (I'll assume the latter.) You're actually arguing that the Bible is not inherently a religious text? That's amazing, assuming you're being more honest here than in the last issue.
Of course god/God is not about true/false. It's about common noun / proper noun. If Jay meant COMMONNAME rather than common noun, his argument is still spurious, because in English capital-G "God" is only COMMONNAME as a proper noun; small-g "god" is COMMONNAME as a common noun. I've asked for refs to the contrary, and no-one has provided one. — kwami (talk) 00:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Jay, Slrubenstein, the version has be "the god who.." for quite some time. There is no consensus for a change at this time. I'm willing to discuss, but in the meantime, please don't edit war. Steve kap (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to discuss, i just think that we should be guided by policy. I am sorry to see that kwame continues not to take the time actually to read what I wrote. Her hysterical reaction aside, I stand by what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
It has been "the god who" for a few weeks, not more. The wording is not carved in stone, so to speak. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, discussion is good, and we should be guided by policy. I think the overiding issue here is NPOV, avoiding bias. I've expressed, in several different ways, how using "God" and "Our Lord" is showing a preference to one group of people. I'm not sure I heard a responce. Do you take my point? Do you have an answer? Steve kap (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
As to what you wrote, and how maybe you didn't get a satisfactory responce from Kawmi, forgive me, but, I have to say, statements like "What about the laws of physics? For Einstein and Hawking these are religious texts" aren't likely to garner much by way of fruitful discussion. The idea that science is a religion might play well in certain circles, but its not really a widely held view, and will not get you very far with a general audience. Lets just stick to the article at hand, shall we? Steve kap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
This seems like a very silly argument to me. Most secondary and tertiary sources (take for instance the entire Oxford series of reference works available online through my academic library) simply state that "God" reveals them to Moses (according to the story). Why do we even have the awkward phrasing stating that the Commandments "identify their source as ...?" This is a mystery to me. In writing about the Ten Commandments "God" is used to identify the deity that our current text is calling "the god who directed the Exodus." Indeed in other places in this entry that is also true. So what gives here? Why is this even a discussion. It seems completely silly to me. It has nothing to do with NPOV. It's conventional in English to call Yahweh, "God." Scholars do it and reference works do it. We should also.Griswaldo (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The reason for the "very silly argument" and the awkward wording is because some think this article should be a defense of the Documentary hypothesis, rather than an explanation of the Ten Commandments. Jayjg (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
So, if I disagree with you, then (1) I am in violation of WP rules, or (2) I have not read what you wrote (after all, no-one could disagree with you if they understood what you said), or (3) I am hysterical. It seems to me that you are incapable of understanding any POV but your own, and are therefore not competent to be an editor in a cooperative enterprise like WP. — kwami (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Your comment was about me, not about article content; comment ignored. Please review WP:CIVIL. Jayjg (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
There is consensus for this change!! Get it? Do you understand?? Jayjg, what makes you think you can make changes without consensus?? Did you think there WAS an consensus for this change? I don't see how that is posible, with whats written above. Or, do yo think, like Others have expressed, that if you feel deeply, deeply, about the issue, the rules don't apply to you? In either case, you are sadly mistaken. Steve kap (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
No, Steve, there is no consensus for this change you made at the end of May. Before that God was always spelled with a capital "G" in the lede. So, abide by the standards you claim to want others to. Jayjg (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Griswald, you say this has nothing to do with NPOV, but I think I've demonstrated how using "God", in the sentence in question, is an expression of bias. Much like Harvard grads ref to their school as "The School", as if there is no other. There are thousnads of gods, and, outside of the context of a Christian or Jewish tradition, in an identifying context, assuming that "God" means the Jewish god "Yahwey" shows bias, in the same way, I submit. I haven't heard that addressed. Steve kap (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Take that up with the Oxford English Dictionary, Britannica and all the other reference sources that utilize English language conventions. On Wikipedia you are free to take that up at the Manual of Style. But as long as "God" is used conventionally in English, and conventionally at Wikipedia to mean Yahweh then that's what we'll do at individual entries, despite your protestations. You appear to be here to cause a muck more so than to improve the entry. Don't you have better things to do? There are a lot of entries about irreligious topics that need dire attention. Do you want to help me with those instead of arguing about this nonsense? The offer stands indefinitely.Griswaldo (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
We are not responsible fo the Oxford English Dictionary. We are responsible, as editors, to not show bias in the wikipedia pages that we edit, and in the language that we use. Saying that there is a convension is not the same as saying you've avoilded bias. There was a convension, in the South, that "colored women" meant a hired cleaning person. Convensions that show bias can be changed by more thoughtful, non-bias usage. So, again, can you address the question of bia that I've raised? As to how I spend my time, that is of course, my business. 17:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)
How you spend your time becomes everyone else's business when you start wasting theirs with tendentious arguments and edit warring as you are currently doing. Your argument is simply an opinion you hold and nothing more. Honestly, if you really do care about the usage of "God" this isn't the place to argue about it. Go to argue at the manual of style about this.Griswaldo (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Griswald, might thing that if you repeat "style guide" enough times, you've answered the question of bias. You haven't.
Kwami, of the versions offered, I still prefer "Yahwey". What do you think? I could go along with "Jehova/Yahwey" if you prefer. I don't think we need to worry about Jayjd or Slrubenstein, they don't seem to be in the "censensus" business anymore, it seems they'd like to try there hand at edit-waring. So I don't see how their opinions should count. What do you say, do we have censensus? Steve kap (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The "Jewish god", Steve? Seriously? So, not the Christian god, then? Please review WP:DISRUPT. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
1) There's way too much edit warring over capitalization of a word. Seriously guys? This is what we're spending our time doing? Everyone please stop. 2) It seems we've "reverted" to a new version of the page which we didn't have before, and now the text reads "identify their source as God, who directed the Exodus". This is clunky and weird. Even if we're using God as a proper noun, we wouldn't do this normally. i.e. "the text identifies its source as Jess, who programmed facebook". What? Instead, we would use an improper noun here, and then name him, or name him and then use an improper noun; either of "identify their source as the god who directed", or "identify their source as God, the deity who directed" would be acceptable. I'm going to revert to the old version until we agree on something else. We don't have consensus here... we just have a couple editors who were more persistent than the others who disagreed. 3) Why are we using "source" instead of "author"? If the answer is Moses, then we should rewrite the sentence altogether, because we're currently implying "author" without saying it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's quite clear at this point that there has been no consensus for the change Steve kap first made on May 31, and has edit-warred since to maintain.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course there's consensus: the consensus of the English-speaking world, which capitalizes proper nouns and doesn't capitalize common nouns. I've asked several times for a ref that this may be an exception, but no-one has provided one. Therefore we follow customary English usage, which is what Steve was doing. — kwami (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what it is you are asking a source for, but there are an endless number that refer to Yahweh as "God," and an equally endless number that refer simply to "God" as the source of the commandments (e.g. All of Oxford's relevant online reference works for starters). I've rephrased the entire sentence. The whole "identify their source as ..." bit was strange from the start.Griswaldo (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Jay was claiming that we have to capitalize "a god" or "the god" if the god happens to be the JC god. AFAIK that's nonsense, but that's what this edit war has been about. It's a bit like edit warring over whether we should capitalize the first word of a sentence. Your version doesn't have any punctuation problems, though IMO saying we shouldn't have any gods before God sounds a bit odd. (We do say that with Islam: "there is no god but God", but that's a translation problem and doesn't sound so odd in Arabic.) — kwami (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Griswaldo, I think your edit was unhelpful and your talk page comment was not sufficient justification for it. That sentence is a paraphrase of the start of the TC text 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt etc...' This tells us who 'I' is, it doesn't "identify God" as anything. We wanted to say it identifies the speaker or the author, but both of these are confusing for different reasons: the speaker, because it may be confused with Moses speaking when he conveys the commandments, and the author, because it may be confused with a putative human author of the bible. Feel free to improve on "source". I am neutral about whether to use "the god who..", "the God who" or "God, who".. anything that can be agreed upon is fine by me. Zargulon (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Except the paragraph prior to that already has the clear statement about that: The Bible describes its form as being spoken by God to those present at mount Sinai and subsequently as an inscription God wrote with his finger on two stone tablets, which God gave to Moses. Why does it need to be restated that they are God's words according to the bible?Griswaldo (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
You are confusing "How the Ten Commandments are described elsewhere in the Bible" with "The contents of the Ten Commandments text, the subject of the article". The prior paragraph contains the first, the paragraph under discussion is the second. They are not redundant. Zargulon (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No the subject of the article is "The Ten Commandments," which of course includes he content of the text but is not limited to it. When we write entries we do not simply describe the subject matter as it is presented to us directly from the source. Indeed we specifically don't do that. We use secondary and tertiary sources that talk about the subject, and discuss many aspects of it, beyond the simple description of what it is. That said God identifies himself, the text does not identify him "as it's source." The Ten Commandments do not read, "The source of these commandments is God," do they? The current language is incorrect and awkward and it really needs changing. I'll try once again.Griswaldo (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Could you try to explain what existence you believe the Ten Commandments have, outside of the text? If for instance you are referring to the film with Charlton Heston, clearly that deserves its own page. I also think a summary of the Ten Commandments is entirely appropriate in the lede and it has an unchallenged feature on this page for ages, so I don't see where you're coming from there.. there's certainly no WP guideline which prevents it. I think your criticism of the current language is naive and when you try to improve it you will see how hard it is to do so, but good luck. Zargulon (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to remove the protection, but can I suggest the following:

The narrator in the Ten Commandments identifies himself as God/the god/the God who directed the Exodus. He prohibits having other gods before him, and making or worshiping idols; threatens punishment for those who reject him and promise love for those who love him; forbids blasphemy of his name; demands observance of the Sabbath and honoring one's parents; prohibits murder, adultery, theft, false testimony, and coveting of one's neighbor's goods. The scheme for partitioning the passages into ten units varies slightly between religions and denominations, as do their translation, interpretation and significance.

Zargulon (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think a summary is totally fine, but I just think the opening is inherently problematic as written. I like your suggestion but I would suggest that part of what is causing the problems above is the existence of "identifies as ... directed the Exodus." The argument being made by Kwami has merit in that if you use such a construction you would want to say, "identified as the ... ," using the definite article. This is what the argument for "the god" or "the deity" comes from. I would suggest, instead:
  • In the narrative God identifies himself as the deity who directed the Exodus; prohibits having other gods before him, and making or worshiping idols; threatens punishment for those who reject him and promise love for those who love him ...
God is not identified by the text, nor by himself really. He announces himself, reminds them who he is to them and goes on to command them.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I wish I could agree, but it's very clear to me that the first line of the commandments is the 'I' identifying himself. Zargulon (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is the simplest and least objectionable way of describing that sentence. Do you mean my suggested rewrite? I can certainly live with "God identifies himself as ..." or else I would not have suggested it. That way it is clear that it is God narrating the commandments and that it is God who self-identifies as the god of the exodus, but we get around the (definite) article issue because we also have "the deity." Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't accept that, for a number of reasons.
  • In the narrative God identifies.. The summary should not presume that the narrator is God where the original does not. (Your version does presume that). Atheists would object to this on principle - I merely object because it is an unnecessary deviation from the meaning of the original.
  • ..as the deity who directed the Exodus is at best identical to that ..as the god who directed the exodus. Anyone capable of demanding capital God or Lord is also capable of demanding capital Deity. It also attracts the additional criticism that "deity" comes from the dictionary of comparison and criticism of religion, whose weight on this page has been a sensitive issue. I accept that "..as the god/the God/God who directed the exodus" needs improvement though.

Zargulon (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think your reasoning is a bit off here:
  • The summary should not presume that the narrator is God where the original does not. I am unsure of what you mean here. The Hebrew Bible says the narrator is God in framing it, and the text itself (e.g. Exodus 20:2–17) says "I am Yahweh, your God." The rest of our entry treats this as the case as well, so I am unsure of what you mean here about "the original." Also, what "in the narrative" does explicitly is to establish the fact that this is in universe, and not a statement of historical fact. I am a nonbeliever myeslf and do not actually believe that this is what happened historically, but I can read clear as day that this is what happens in the narrative. It is no different from saying, for instance, "In the story, Huckleberry Fin tells Tom Sawyer ..." It didn't happen in reality, but it sure does in the narrative.
  • I prefer deity only because God, capital G, has already been used in my sentence and stylistically it is awkward to say God and "the god" in the same sentence. One could also write -- "In the narrative God identifies himself as the one who directed the exodus." Makes no difference to me.Griswaldo (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where you demonstrated how my "reasoning was a bit off", whatever that means. I think you are not appreciating the distinction between the Ten Commandments text describing the 'I' of the ten commandments claiming that he is God, and it describing him objectively as being God. Your analogy with Tom Sawyer wasn't complete.. perhaps you could provide an analogy which has both original text and that same text paraphrased. For the second point, I tend to agree that one shouldn't use "God" twice in the sentence with slightly different meanings, although as you know my resolution would be different. Zargulon (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand your objection better after starting a long reply to this, thinking through it and then deleting it. If I wrote, "It is I, Griswaldo, with whom you have been arguing," and you described this as "in his response, Griswaldo identified himself as the person with whom I have been arguing," it is implied that I am real person who identified himself as such. In Huck Finn we know that the characters aren't real, so anytime you say "in the story, Huck Finn ..." it is implied that this only happened in universe, in the story. In neither situation is there much ambiguity. Yet when we talk about the stories of the Bible there is disagreement between Biblical literalists and most others over whether or not the events described are real. Saying something like "According to the Bible ..." or "the Biblical text describes ..." is much less ambiguous than saying "In the bible ... " or "In the narrative ..."? Is that correct? I just want to make sure if I put my finger on it before proceeding. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for making such an effort to understand. What you describe is indeed the objection that I was worried about others making. The objection which I have myself is much simpler. If Ten Commandments had read "God said, I am the Lord your God who...", then that could be summarized as "In the Ten Commandments God identifies himself as the God/god/deity who..". However the Ten Commandments in fact reads "I am the Lord your God who.." which has to be summarized as "The narrator [meaning 'I'] identifies himself as the God/god/deity who..". It is just a matter of being as accurate as possible to the the text.
There is actually an additional, more subtle point which I haven't yet had a chance to mention. The sentence "It is I, Griswaldo, with whom you have been arguing", can have two wildly different meanings as illustrated by:
1. Q: "Whom have I been arguing with?" A: "It is I, Griswaldo, with whom you have been arguing".
2. Knock-knock: Q: "Who is it, and what do you want?" A: "It is I, Griswaldo, with whom you have been arguing".
English technically makes the distinction between these two meanings by using "that" rather than "whom". In the first case 1., it would be more correct English to say "It is I, Griswaldo, that you have been arguing with". But this distinction is not observed. I quite strongly feel that the first verse of the TC is like case 2., i.e. it is not answering the question "Who is our God who brought us out from the land of Egypt? (I, the Lord)".. rather it is answering the question "Who are you? (I'm the Lord, and here's a little more about me)". To me the word 'identify' describes this well, although an even less ambiguous word would be appreciated.
Feel free to split my response if you want to answer these points separately. Zargulon (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If we are simply providing a concise account of what the text (Exodus, Deuteronomy) says, we should follow the conventions of the text, meaning, the leading English translations - King James, JPS generally for Jews or we can consult ArtScroll, Plaut, and Lieber to be more specific, Speiser for the critical view. I think all capitalize God so we should follow that convention (yes, kawmi, there is a convention, and yes, it is a convention of Bible translaters. Wat you call a "convention" is just another one of your pitiful excuses for original research. I am listing reliable sources we can consult).

But I think there is a larger problem here which is the paucity of commentary. Griswaldo is right, good articles are not narrowly on their objects but on the larger context of these objects. Zargulon wants to know what this is. I would say the considerable commentary - from within those religions that consider these books sacred, and also from critical scholars who do not. Adding this commentary I believe would enhance the article. In order to add this commentary we would have to turn to reliable sources. And a side-benefit of doing so is, we would see what conventions these sources follow. I do not own the Anchor Bible but this is a highly prestigious critical commentary that not only has verse-by-berse commentary but lengthy introductions summarizing works by other leading critics. Some editors here seem to have an antipathy to religious views. It is okay for editors to have biases - if it leads them to contribute properly sourced vies that are otherwise not represented. Aside from a contentious argument over adding a view of Goethe, we really have not discussed any of the leading critical scholarship. Why not? Maybe it is easy for people to spew their own prejudices from their computers, but I think your time would be better spent going to a library (you know, that building with lots of books) and looking at actual books (you know, those reliable sources with the kinds of things we expect good encyclopedias to report on)? And conribute actual knowledge rather than opinion? Just a suggestion for a refreshing change. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


3RR Steve Kap

Steve, you have reverted three times, beware of edit waring. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, I got it too late. My error. Is it OK if I delete this section? Not of general interest, and not discussing the article per say. Or, feel free to delete yourself. Cheers Steve kap (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it is a useful reminder about the edit war that has now led to the article being protected. JFW | T@lk 20:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, SL, why warn specifically Steve, when the editor you agree with also hit 3RR? — kwami (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

@kwami,Hmm, because I just reverted him and if he reverted me he would be blocked and it is a courtesy to warn someone, to avert a block. If someone thought that I or another editor was in danger of being blocked, they should have issued a warning as well. I did not notice another editor in danger of being blocked. But your post shows that you were aware of an editor who was at risk. The question is, why did you not warn them? You have an ethical obligation. Or do you not care about ethics.
@steve kap, sorry I have not checked the page until now which is why I did not reply sooner. I did warn you as soon as it was clear to me that I had an obligation to warn you. I am sorry if it was too late. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikiwikiwaaa: Hi. I'm new to this, so I hope for your patience. I hit a search of the 10Cs, and found it had been locked today. I tried to read the whole page of comments, but they don't fit my way of operating, and I just couldn't wade through every word. I look for inspiration, and the discussion seems to be the kind of nitpicking that tends to cause stress rather than inspiration. I could add a bit as follows:

1.) Regarding Yahweh, I like to think of the way the spirit of God is said to be like a breath, and it sounds like an intake and exhalation, "Yhhhh, Whhhh." like the name of God is an intake and exhalation of breath. A name that can't be spoken, but it can be breathed. 2.) I glossed over a section, and this caught my eye, "English technically makes the distinction between these two meanings by using that rather than whom." One of my pet peeves is when someone refers to a person, and says the person, "that," says or does something, when it should be "Who," said or did. Regarding people, hho refers to the subject of the sentence, whom refers to the object of the sentence. "That," refers to a thing, not a person. 3.) It confounded me to encounter writers who were splitting hairs in other's writing, yet not editing their own work. That is my contribution to the existing discussion, now for my point:

I feel there is an inherent error in a basic understanding of one commandment, exemplified by the alternate version offered in the side-by-side comparison of the texts from two different books. it states, "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name." but the 'Division according to different religions' heading states it accurately, "Do not take the name of the Lord in vain."

According to the Strong's Concordance, http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

The word "vain" is from the Hebrew word, shav' shawv or shav {shav}(which he numbers 7723); from the same as 7722 in the sense of desolating; evil (as destructive), literally (ruin) or morally (especially guile); figuratively idolatry (as false, subjective), uselessness (as deceptive, objective; also adverbially, in vain):--false(-ly), lie, lying, vain, vanity.

To me, someone can say "guldernit" all day with impunity, but when they take the name of the Lord, representing that they are at one with him, yet fail to live an exemplary life, they took the Lord's name in vain. They took God's name, but it was to no avail. Why would anyone take up the name of the Lord based on what it did for this person? I shudder when I hear, "God told me," from someone, especially from an abusive Godless church skulker. Thank you for giving me your time. Best to all... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikiwaaa (talk • contribs) 23:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikiwikiwaaa, I suggest you look at Brown Driver Briggs as a better lexicon for the Bible. I think vain = Hevel. But no matter. To reply to your comments (1) talk pages are for multiple discussions some of which go on for some time, some of which change their character, some of which end abruptly - the talk page is not written as one coherent essay and you should not expect to find it cohere as an essay would. (2) if you wish to edit WP or discuss ways to improve articles, which is what talk pages are for, you must work within our core policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Unless you are familiar with these, it is unlikely you will be able to make sense of any edit conflicts, and also you may not know why some of your edits might be deleted, so I urge you to read these. "I shudder when I hear, "God told me," from someone, especially from an abusive Godless church skulker" has nothing to do with our articles or how we edit them; these kinds of comments do not belong here. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

God vs. God (part 2)

[added above subsection heading after discussion continued —Telpardec (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Telpardec, you don't seem to understand the issue at had. Your stated point is irrelevant. Of course "God" is capitalized in ref to the JC deity, because it's a title, and titles are capitalized. "Lord" and "Father" are capitalized for the same reason. But "god", "lord", and "father" are not capitalized when they are not titles, except in religious texts which also capitalize "Him". WP is not such a text. The MOS covers the basics, which are good as a rule of thumb, but it doesn't address details such as the dispute here. A legalistic reading of a guideline in an attempt to divine an answer to a question which isn't addressed is not a useful enterprise. — kwami (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the capitalization issue, I agree with Kwami that Telpardec didn't give sufficient attention to the difficulty of the issue, and I find his refactoring and general attitude high-handed, to put it politely. Zargulon (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Kwami stated this very well. I'd go on to say that it is our choice, as editors, WHEN to use God as a proper name, and when to identify Him as the god that did this or that. And if, in a context of idendification, we start with "God", assuming everyone know that we are ref to none other than the JC deity, we are expressing bias. I have no problem using God in other contexts. For example, the first paragraph, when we start my making it clear that we are talking in the context of a particular religous "tradition", then "God" is fine. Steve kap (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Good, we agree on the first paragraph. The reaction here has been that if I want "god" in this sentence, I must want "god" everywhere. That's not the point: Like Steve, I have no problem talking about "God the Father" or "Our Lord" or "Jesus the Saviour" when the context calls for it. But I wouldn't want "Jesus is the Saviour in Christianity", nor "Yahweh is the God of Judaism", because "saviour in Christianity" and "god of Judaism" are not titles but descriptions. Similarly with "Lord Krishna" but "god of Hinduism". I mean, what about "Yahwey is the only God in Judaism": according to Telpardec's take, it would have to be capitalized because it's the JC deity. But that would imply that we are contrasting him with other Gods, when we should say with other gods. — kwami (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, well, first thanks to Zargulon for the polite heads up, you may be right, it seemed like a radical idea at the time, but a message keeps appearing various places around Wikipedia that says "BE BOLD", so I said, that sounds like a plan. If my higher ups at Wikipedia have a problem, well I'm sure someone can figure out a solution.

[Oops, underlined correction added here, after Kwami replied below. Telpardec (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)]
Now, as for the other things, sorry, I've already made my position clear. It has been the custom for more than 400 years to always capitalize the word God in the Bible when referring to the LORD, and Wikipedia is simply following the style of the primary source. The rule to "always capitalize" is one of the most simple rules here, it's a total no brainer. As for the other comments, well, some of the things above are related to the proposal I made below, and it would be cheating to give any more reasons in another message before everyone has taken their best shot, so you have me at a disadvantage. Sorry.

I really, really think we need to put a lid on it, leave the past in the past, and move forward. People need time for wounds to heal. My request is to not reply further to this message, except those three editors above are asked to reply immediately below with nothing more than the word "OK" and a space and 3 tildes only, thereby signifying that it is OK for me to extend the protective lid over these messages. (Anyone that wants to be snoopy can click in the upper right to open the box.) My heartfelt thanks to everyone for their patience. —Telpardec (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What you say is simply not true. There are dozens of cases of l.c. "god" in the KJV. Also, there is 400-year tradition of capitalizing "Him" in the Bible, but we don't do that here regardless. So Biblical punctuation is irrelevant. What is relevant is normal English: we don't capitalize pronouns, and we don't capitalize common nouns. — kwami (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Here's a good example: 1Sa 5:7–8 The ark of the god of Israel must not stay here with us ... "What shall we do with the ark of the god of Israel?" They answered, "Have the ark of the god of Israel moved to Gath." So they moved the ark of the God of Israel. (NIV). Here they shift capitalization. In the voice of scripture, it's capitalized. In the voice of the Ekronites it's not capitalized. I'm not clear if that's because "God of Israel" is a title for the purposes of scripture ("Scripture"?), and not a title in the minds of the Ekronites, or if it's because "God" when referring to Jehovah is always capitalized when in the voice of Scripture. But we aren't the voice of Scripture, and we're not using it as a title.
In other words, it appears that you capitalize when it's your god, and don't capitalize when it's not your god. But we're not here to tell the reader who is their god. Notice a little further along in 2Sa 23:3, where "Rock of Israel" is capitalized. Are we going to have to capitalize "Rock" too?
An even better example at 1Ki 18:24, Then you call on the name of your god [elohim], and I will call on the name of the LORD [Jehovah]. The god [elohim] who answers by fire—he is God [elohim]. Of course, "the god who answers by fire" is Jehovah. There's a clear distinction drawn between "god" as a common noun, even re. Jehovah, and "God" as The One True Deity. All Steve and I are asking is that we follow the same convention here.
And then when we get to Dan 2:47 we have, The king said to Daniel, "Surely your God is the God of gods and the Lord of kings — not the King of Babylon's god, but one now recognized as supreme. But unlike the Bible, we're not in the business of telling the reader which god is supreme.
And in 1Ki 20:28 we have l.c. "god" even in a conversation between believers: The man of God came up and told the king of Israel, "This is what the LORD says: 'Because the Arameans think the LORD [Jehovah] is a god of the hills and not a god of the valleys, I will deliver this vast army into your hands, and you will know that I am the LORD [Jehovah].'" So it's simply not true that "god" is always capitalized in the Bible even when it refers to Jehovah. — kwami (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am truly sorry, Kwami, we're at a dead end. See my "Oops" above. We're wasting each other's time, and everyone else's time. You spent a lot of time replying to my mistake with several edits, and I noticed your special care to avoid offending me, and I appreciate your consideration. I spent several hours trying to figure out what you were talking about before I noticed that I left 5 words out of my former statement. I can't reply to your comment, since it no longer applies to the correct statement. Looking at all my edits from this message to the top of the talk page, I cannot find a single one that resulted in any improvement to the article. This is not good. This thread is dead. We need to get back on the track to improving this article back up to good article status or higher. There is a proposal on the table. Zargulon's former proposal mentioned below seems to be ready if we confirm what section, ask for objections, wait 24 hours, declare consensus, slap a template on it, and an admin will make the change on the page.

Let's close the box on this thread and start worrying about the things we can do something about, instead of spinning our wheels. In the past 40 days, this article had more than a quarter million views, some of which of course would be people (like us) viewing it more than once in that time frame. They are not seeing the quality page they ought to be seeing. Some of them are now seeing the page protection tag and coming over to this page, and shaking their heads saying, What in the world are these people doing? Why don't we show them what they should be seeing? Sounds like a plan to me. Time to skeedaddle. Thanks for everyone's patience. —Telpardec (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's my OK to close the box. I would like to see 3 more.

OK Telpardec (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My statement stands even with the correction to your statement. I rather assumed that was what you meant. There are dozens of times in the Bible when "god" is not capitalized even when it refers to Jehovah, and I gave several examples. Bottom line: we do not capitalize common nouns any more than we do pronouns. — kwami (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:MOSCAPS: "Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized: God, Allah, Freyja, the Lord, the Supreme Being, the Messiah... In a biblical context "God" is always capitalized when referring to the Judeo-Christian deity, but not capitalized when referring to anyone else to whom the word "god" is applied..." Jayjg (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Kwami, I am coming round to Jayjg's opinion.. that e.g. "the God who directed the exodus" should be capitalized:
  • 1. I appreciate you found quotes from the bible referring to the Judeo-Christian God without caps. Nonetheless I accept Jayjg's argument that WP:MOSCAPS overrides this. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you brought this up at WP:MOSCAPS.
  • 2. It is definitely referring to the Judeo-Christian deity. So we would have, somewhat counterintuitively: "the God who directed the exodus" but "the god who was worshipped by the Sumerians".
  • 3. The fact that God is preceded by "the" does not in itself mean either that is a common noun or that it should not be capitalized. Compare "Q:Which Dave are you talking about? A:The Dave you introduced me to last Sunday"

Zargulon (talk) 19:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

First, MOSCAPS is a guideline. It doesn't override anything, because it isn't policy. It is meant as a rule of thumb to be used when writing an article, but with the understanding that no guideline is likely to be appropriate to every situation. Please read WP:GUIDELINE.
(2) Yes, of course it refers to Jehovah. But even the Bible would have "the god who directed the exodus" (Exodus?) if we weren't positing him as the supreme deity, which of course we shouldn't do. Jay apparently understands this, as he proposes (next) a wording in which "God" is a proper rather than a common noun. You show the same understanding in not capitalizing "Exodus".
(3) That would be the case if there were several supreme deities in Judaism. That might be a slightly controversial argument. — kwami (talk) 21:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:MOSCAPS is pretty clear, and deals specifically with this situation. It's unclear why this particular article should be exempt from it. Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Easy: MOSCAPS is a one-line rule of thumb. In a Biblical context, "God" is normally a title. Thus it should be capitalized. That's all the guideline is saying. It doesn't go into detail. But in the wording we have here, "god" is not a title, so it is inappropriate to capitalize it. That is, we're operating outside the context the guideline is taking as the norm. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
No, WP:MOSCAPS is a Wikipedia:Guideline, which is considerably more prescriptive than a "one-line rule of thumb", particularly when it specifically addresses this situation, and "God, who directed the Exodus" or "the Lord, who directed the Exodus" both fit squarely within the context of MOSCAPS. It's still unclear why this particular article should be exempt from it. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a guideline. That's what I said.
No, this article should not be exempt. You didn't read what I wrote. — kwami (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it should be either "God, who directed the Exodus" or "the Lord, who directed the Exodus". Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
That certainly solves the capitalization problem. But IMO when identifying someone, we should use their name. You might call your boss "Boss" with a capital B, but it would sound bizarre to say that he announced himself "as Boss, who directs the Company". — kwami (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:MOSCAPS and consensus indicate that we should use "God, who directed the Exodus" or "the Lord, who directed the Exodus". I doubt anyone reading it will actually find it "bizarre". Jayjg (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if we're going to capitalize, it would need to be wording like that that is actually compatible with capitalization. I agree on that point. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
"God, who directed the Exodus" would only be compatible with MOSCAPS only "in a biblical context". Outside a bible biblical context the Exodus is the exodus, and it never happened. Also note that " the god that..." is also compatible with MOSCAPS. It seems to me that it is an editorial choice, when to speak in a biblical context, when to step outside the bible. I would suggest that when the sentences has to do with IDENTIFICATION, we should do that latter, but otherwise do the former, but, when doing so, making clear that we are relecting the "Holy Text", not reality. Steve kap (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is very interesting discussion but this is not the appropriate forum. You ocuppaid all discussion page, lock the artilce for changes, also it seems that nobody listen to nobody, so no chance for agreement. And also who could be final arbiter between you? May be you will transfer your deep academic talks to your personal pages? I am prsonally boring from such suggestion as change article title etc--Phillaw (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Who are you talking to, what are you saying, and what content changes are you proposing? Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reorder and expand

Is everyone waiting for someone else to be first? ("And we're walking..." :)

  • I've added a 3rd paragraph to the intro/lede instead of the 2nd sentence of paragraph 2, which now includes mention of the U.S. public display of 10C.
  • Expanded Terminology section with some more translation variations.
  • Reordered former item "4 Critical historians' interpretations" in contents to slot before item "7 Main points of interpretative difference", per this archive_9 talk.
—Telpardec (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Terminology section expanded, typo corrections, references fixed, etc. Anyone notice anything else?
—Telpardec (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

New proposal

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

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

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

I get where you are coming from. But, in wikipedias voice, we are going to state, without qualification, that God directed the Exodus? There is good evidence that the Exodus never happened. I think we need to make it clear that these are the tenents of a religon, not a historical account. Steve kap (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The Ten Commandments identify their source as the Lord God, who, in the Biblical narrative, directed the Exodus ... (more information = better) Slrubenstein | Talk 20:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
No, that is really not very good. It is the character of God himself who in the first commandment claims to have directed the exodus ("asher hotzeitikha me'eretz mitzrayim") not "the Biblical narrative". It should be what is was before, only with the relevant capitalization, and with the comma after God removed, which would make it clear that the God's claim of directing the exodus is part of the story. Zargulon (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
In the biblical narative, true, it is the character of God that makes these claims and statements. Outside of the bible narative, however, it's anybodys guess if these things even happened. I support Slrubenstein's suggestion. Steve kap (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Another way to go is 'according to religous tradition...' or some such statement.Steve kap (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The Ten Commandments are already part of the biblical narrative, Steve. Repeating this by saying "in the biblical narrative" is redundant. Zargulon (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow Zargulon. We agree the 10C are part of a biblical narrative. So how is saying so redundent? Unless we have said so earlier? Is that the case, and maybe I'm just missing it? Steve kap (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein, your suggestions are fine. Jayjg (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Slrubinstein, let me be the first to congratulate you on this, the happiest day of your life. Say a shehehiyanu.
The sentence you have proposed sounds dumb.. "The Ten Commandments say something or other.. in the biblical narrative." It is just redundant and really bad style.. the Ten Commandments are intrinsically part of the Biblical narrative. It also obfuscates the fact that the clause about the Exodus from Egypt is not just a random fact from the biblical narrative, but specifically part of the Ten Commandments. That is my objection - bad style and pointless ambiguity. My objection is nothing to do with whether there really is a God, as you seem to think.
Being in the minority I would not revert you if you completed the edit. But equally you should realize that sentences which sound stupid are an excuse for random troublemakers or those with an agenda to 'improve' them. An article which is written well, by contrast, gives the impression of having smart editors monitoring it, and encourages troublemakers to go elsewhere. I hope you, or I, or someone else, will find something better rather than authoring something embarrassing which stores up trouble for the future. Zargulon (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, I have realized it is not the happiest day of the year so I cannot say a Shehechianu (it may be the second happiest though). I am glad you won't revert. To try to help you feel better, let me point out two thins: first, I would agree with you that we should never write anything in an encyclopedia article that is dumb, our policies thankfully do not prohibit us from writing anything that "sounds" dumb. Second, pleeeeease consider this: it sounds dumb to you because you know a lot. The average reader of an encyclopedia article know a lot less about the topic than you do, and will have thought much less about these things than you have thought. Please consider the possibility that it sonds dumb to you for good reasons but these reasons are the same good reasons for why it won't sound dumb to someone else ... and that someone else matters. Put another way, we may write the articles, but we write them for readers for those people who are not qualified to write them. I am just trying to offer you a way to find value in this for yourself. Slrubenstein | Talk
Thanks, I appreciate it. Nonetheless I hope this will be improved on soon. Zargulon (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
You could just start with "According to religous tradition.." or "Accoring to Judio-Christian holy books.." or anything like that. Then you cay say almost anything you like, if its verifiable. You can say "God" meaning Yawhey. I'd still object to "our Lord God", because that has additional implications, its presumptuous. My main objection is using God as a name, before you've established which god you're talking about. And I object in general when tenents of a religon are presented without qualification, as "true". I think we can all agree on that. Steve kap (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, could we start with "According to the Ten Commandments.. ", would that be acceptable?
I think thats fine, but I suggest no "Lord". Lord isn't a name along the lines of Joe or Frank. Its more like when I call my someone "My Dear". And someone thats "My Dear" might not be your dear. Sim... your "Lord" might not be my lord. Steve kap (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • The tetragrammaton is Hebrew. The standard custom in English translation, following the example of the Greek New Testament, is to substitute the word LORD when the vowel points indicate that the Hebrew word for Lord is substituted, and the word GOD when the vowel points indicate that the Hebrew word for God is substituted. The two templates were designed to be used where scripture is quoted, to be accurate. When not quoting text where those two forms are used, it is not necessary for Wikipedia's voice to use the templates, but simply Lord, or God, with of course a third party reference, or accurate summary or paraphrase of the primary source, which in our context is the biblical text. —Telpardec (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    • We could use partial quotes to avoid having Wiki-voice declare the Lord is God:

      Spoken[1] to the people gathered at mount Sinai[2], Exodus 20:2 begins: "I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt", and the commands prohibit them from having other gods before him... etc. (Underlined part beginning with "having" is the existing text from there.) How does that grab you? —Telpardec (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Temporary reflist:

  1. ^ Exodus 20:1 "And God spake all these words, saying,"
  2. ^ Exodus 19:11 "And be ready against the third day: for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai."

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

I like it, using the quotes. We could also hyperlink the "I am the lord they (your) God" to the ariticle of the same name. That article also give the alternate translation (which I believe is more accurate) "I am Yahew, your god". So, it would satisfy all sides, I'd think. In general I'm in favor of simply stating what the text says, rather than an interpretation. Unless it is clearly stated that the statenment is an interpretation, and in what context. Steve kap (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a point of fact, you say its the standard custom to sub. the work "Lord" when, Yahwey is in the original, and true, thats what most English bibles do. But, and its a bit but...it is also the custom to state clearly, in the intro, or in "notes of translation", this is what is done. In other words, most bibles will state up front that, say, LORD is used for Yahwey, and God is used for something else, etc. 130.76.96.150 (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)(forgot to logon)Steve kap (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I'm not presently making the suggestion, but if the criteria is to be using the gods name to identify what god we are talkng about, as SLR suggests, then Yawhey would the best choice. It from the hebrew, yes, but in English. Like any other name from a different language. Steve kap (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
No-one proposed it as a translation. We're not translating. Again, a confusion of Hebrew and English: the question is how best to word this in English, not how it would be worded in biblical Hebrew. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the point is that the Tne Commandment refer to Yahew as ther source. Yahwew IS the accepted translation. "The Lord" is a substitution, in keeping with the a particular Jewish tradition of not uttering gods name. I've got many, may sources of this. Look up "Lord" in wikipedia. Look up "I am the LORD your God" in wikipedia. Look up "the names of god in judism". Look at the first few pages of any well put together bible. They all tell you the same thing. The Tetragram is the name. "LORD" or "Adonai" is a substition, relecting said tradition. I've pointed this out several times. It shouldn't be new to you. Now, YOU might not except Yahweh as a translation. Thats just to darn bad for you. Your not published. Those that are seem to prefer some variation of Yahweh as the name. And recongize "LORD" or "Adonai" as a substitution. I know you've agree, but could you at least acknolge the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 22:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Kap (talk • contribs) 22:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Steve, you misunderstand the word "reflect". Bede's translation was incidentally similar to Jewish convention, but there is no suggestion in your quote that he did it religious reasons, rather than because the tetragrammaton is an intrinsically unclear word.. Do you really think that Bede ever met a jew in his life? Or that he would have accepted jewish religious reasons when making his translation? As to the modern bibles you quote, they do not change the fact that society at large is most familiar with 'Lord', because of the overwhelming influence of the KJV, and that is the only thing that WP cares about. Zargulon (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Please don't split comment, it makes things confusing. I'll replay point by point:
-"Bede's translation was incidentally similar to Jewish convention" Really? Any evidence for this?
-"no suggestion in your quote that he did it religious reasons" Yes there is, it says that he "...reflected the Jewish practice"
-"you misunderstand the word "reflect". " I don't thinks so. And I'm sure it doesn't mean 'incidentally similar'.
-"Do you really think that Bede ever met a jew in his life?" I don't see the relevence. He certainly could read what the tradtions were.
-"Society at large.." Society at large once used the term "colored women" to mean house cleaner. Things change.
-"..that is the only thing WP cares about.." WP also cares about NPOV.
Steve kap (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
1. Do you dispute that it was similar? I don't think anyone else would.
2. That proves that he didn't do it for religious reasons, since he wasn't Jewish.
3. I'm sure reflect doesn't mean 'did it for the same reasons'.
4. Really? Any evidence for this?
5. On this, they haven't changed yet, and WP is not your tool for changing them.
"WP also cares about NPOV".. but your POV is not neutral. WP also cares about WP:COMMON and WP:UNDUE. Zargulon (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

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

1. No, I don’t dispute that it was similar. I dispute that it was “incidentally similar”.
2. It is my understanding that there are other religious groups, “Christians” for example, that have adopted certain traditions from the Jewish religions, thu admittedly not all of them.
3. Well, I think it does, in this case. People of good will could disagree on this point.
4. Do I have evidence that a person that TRANSLATED THE BIBLE might have had the ability and occasion to read about the customs of the Jewish people? Is that really the question?
5. Well, some people call this particular god “Lord”, and some don’t. It may well be that the former is in the majority. But the majority doesn’t always rule, and using “Lord” for any particular god is showing some bias toward and affinity for that particular god. Steve kap (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
1. OK.. that's what 2,3,4 and 5 are about.
2. There are some other groups, "Writers and speakers of English" for example, who have adopted certain traditions like referring to the tetragrammaton as 'Lord', despite not having religious reasons for doing so. Certain people, like Steve Kap, want to change the tradition of these groups, and good luck him. Please don't use WP to make your point though.
3. Then let's not get too hung up on the meaning of the word 'reflect', which was just what some WP editor chose to use in the Bede article.
4. Er.. yes.. Do you think Bede translated from a Hebrew bible or with the help of Jewish scholars? Where do you think he would have had the occasion to read about the post-biblical customs of the Jewish people, such as replacing the tetragrammaton with 'adonai'?
5. I think it does not. People of good will could disagree on this point.
Zargulon (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think only 2 is on subject, so thats all I'll address. I have already conceded that posibly, that the majority of English speaker may use "Lord" (although most probably would say "God"). My point, and feel free to address it, is that the use in not NPOV. In the same way, "One man, one vote" never was gender nuetral language, and therefore expressed bia. It may have been the standard, it maybe have been widely used, but it wasn't NPOV. I've made the same point several times, with several examples, but I've never heard a responce. Is it that you think that 'common useage' outweights NPOV in this case? Thats fine, but if so, please say so, and acknowlege my point, if you take my point. Please don't just repeat "lots of people use ..." or some such. I get it. I hear you. I think NPOV is more important in this case. 23:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)
Ok, regarding NPOV. NPOV is not an unqualified principle in WP. In particular, WP has the concept of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE which says that opinions held by a small or fringe minority need not be given equal weight when deciding how to write an article. This is why, for instance, we don't use simplified spellings for English words even though there is an organized movement which lobbies for simplifying spelling (e.g. writing "Steev" instead of "Steve"). Of course, Atheism or non-Monotheism is not a fringe opinion, in fact it may be that the majority of people do not subscribe to the monotheist tradition which originally led to the orthography "Lord". However, most of these people do not object to the orthography 'Lord' since it is just a historic property of the language they speak. The point of view that the orthography 'Lord' should be avoided is WP:FRINGE, and it would be improper to defer to it in writing this or any other article. Zargulon (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
So, I take it from your responce that you recongize that using "Lord" in not NPOV, yes? I take this from your argument "NPOV is not an unqualified principle ". If using "Lord" was NPOV, why would such an argument be needed.
As to "The point of view that the orthography 'Lord' should be avoided is fringe" ,,,, any evidence for that? Did you take a survey? What % of people would object to "Lord" in the context? Do you in fact have any idea? Do you understand the difference between arguing the merits, and just presumming the vast majority is on your side?
And if "Lord" is the agreed standard, if any objection is "fringe", why have I never seen "Lord" used in non-religous, non-fiction writtings, outside of quoting someone? Can you infact point to another encyclopedia that uses "Lord", without quotes, to ref to the Jewish or Christian deity?Steve kap (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review WP:MOSCAPS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents and WP:NOTAFORUM. We're going to follow the explicit guidelines here. Jayjg (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
So, I take it from your response that you admit you are misusing the WP:NPOV guideline in order to avoid having to follow WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:BURDEN and many other WP guidelines which might interfere with your agenda?
As to your second question, I am simply going on my own experience.. I have never met any atheists who have a problem with 'Lord'. Do you have a problem with that?
You are widening the question. The question is how to render the the tetragrammaton in English. I also don't understand how the guidelines you quoted refer to this dispute.. perhaps you were just making a random list for effect? Please don't, it is a waste of time.. Zargulon (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Jayjg. I did review NOTAFORM, and, to no great suprize, it did NOT prohibit talking about what goes in the article in the TALK page. Did you think the above was about hopscotch? Steve kap (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any discussion regarding a proposed change to the article. Do you have a specific proposal? Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Then maybe you need to check your vision. SLR was suggesting the "The Lord God" to be used to ref to this particular deity. Its right there, still on this page. Thats what Z and I were arguing about before you interupted. I notice that your post of 5 August didn't have a proposal. Nor did it further the discussion. It only stated your ignorance of the relevance of the discussion. Very disruptive, really. Next time you find yourself in such a state, may I suggestion that you READ the beginning of the discussion first? Steve kap (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jay, If I may step in briefly, this thread started after my proposal above to use a partial quote in the first line of the problem sentence to sidestep the other issues. Granted, the discussion has been on a side track, but I've thrown a switch below, and if we can slow the train down a little we may be able to get it on the main track. Besides, after I added a 3rd paragraph to the intro, and your editcopy turned my ugly duckling into a swan, I re-read the 1st paragraph and realized that the part of my above proposal before the quote was redundant, having been mentioned already in the 1st paragraph. So, I need to withdraw that proposal and re-work it a little, taking into account the additional discussion since. Thanks to everyone for their patience. —Telpardec (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, I from WP:MOSCAPS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents," Proper nouns and titles referencing deities are capitalized..", I noticed it didn't say WHEN to use proper nouns, or that every time a deity was ref to, it MUST be a proper noun. It seems then that this could be an editorial choice, no? Also, nothing in there to indicate whether to us "Lord" instead of "God". But thank you so much for your input, and legitimate attempt to further the discussion. Steve kap (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
The lead currently refers to God as a proper noun, and I haven't seen any good reason to change that, other than a specific individual's personal dislike for capitalizing it. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and how did it get that way? Was it the result of consensus? I seem to remember an edit war (which, appearnely only I took part in, and, somehow lost, even without an opponent). Or is "consensus" only a requirment for opinions you don't agree with? Is that you "care about the article", is that it?
As to "..specific individual's personal dislike for capitalizing it...." Jaydj, I don't recall stating "God shouldn't be capitalized because I don't like it". Do you recall me or anyone saying that? Can you find that in the archives? Rather, and I've made this point several times now, feel free to address it, my issue was BIAS. The idea that if we just launch righ into using "God" for "Yahwey", out side a biblical context, as if everyone is a Christian or a Jew, as if there is no other deity called God, showed BIAS. And LORD even more so. Now I know that you might not argee, but can you acknowledge that this was my stated position? When you imply that my reasons are a "... personal dislike..", aren't you really just making things up?
Either way, I do encourage you to join the discussion if you have anything to add. And if you don't, or if you don't understand it, or don't understand the relevance of it, or don't understate with proposal is being forwarded or rebuffed, kindly avoid being disruptive and just stay out of it.
(and now, below, I look forward to someone admonishiming me with 'what is your specific proposal'. Note that same someone will have no proposal of his own, and will be discussing points of order, just like me) Steve kap (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Without weighing in on the issue of the above debate, it seems to be partly a continuation or offshoot of the now archived section Talk:Ten_Commandments/Archive_8#I_am_the_Lord_your_God_andnames_of_God_in_Judaism, and partly some things from other threads, and I had trouble figuring out where those things were heading. We need some sort of closure here.
I have re-attached my temporary {{reflist|close=1}} to the comment further up with the references and moved one out of chronological order message to where it fits. And I would like to revisit something in the first message that followed my suggestion of using a partial quote. See my next paragraph. (All paragraphs signed if anyone needs to insert a reply after any one of them.) —Telpardec (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

— Steve kap 15:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

— Steve kap 03:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

So, once again, it is clear that "Lord" is NOT presented as the NAME of the particular god. Its a substitute. Of course it is NOT Wikipedias place to reflect those religous practices, any more that we should say "peace be upon him" every time Mohummad is mentioned. Could you please address these points? Or are you on IDIDNOTHEARTHAT mode.
As to "POV pushing", of course people of good will disagree sometimes. Its doesn't mean that one is "POV pushing" any more that the other is. Please stop your whining and stick to reasoned arguements. Steve kap (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, the idea that the Jewish sky god is called "Yahwey" is not at all "novel" as you stated, and it didn't start with me. I find it rather odd that you would think so. Steve kap (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to add a note on all the above -- the reason that older English translations used "Lord" is that they were primarily derived from the Vulgate and the Septuagint, both strongly influenced by the Jewish viewpoints and practice of their times, which used "Dominus" and "Kurios" respectively. But the Hebrew itself says YHWH, as a number of more recent translations reflect.
Here we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not a religious work; and it does our readers a greater service to reflect what the original text actually says: "I am YHWH your God". Substituting "Lord" removes something important from the full understanding of the content of the text that we should be seeking to convey. Jheald (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting assertion, but quite against the consensus of views and arguments expressed on this topic previously. Please review the previous discussions to better understand why. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I have now looked at the previous discussion, if that's the one you're referring to, and quite frankly the arguments presented seem remarkably feeble -- that YHWH should not be used because it is unfamiliar, or not the most commonly-used English translation.
The name YHWH is understood to have historically fallen out of spoken use during the Exilic period, when the specificity of the name became an embarrassment to a community that now wanted its God to be more abstract and universalist. That is when the circumlocutions like "Lord" became standard. But it is not Wikipedia's job to be bound to such obfustications. The specificity of the original use, YHWH, is an important part of the story, and therefore something we should present.
As to the claim that it's unfamiliar, well it's our job to present the unfamiliar and to extend readers' knowledge and understanding, not to shy away from that. That should be our guiding light here.
Finally, as to the assertion that some binding consensus has been achieved, in the first place consensus can change; but in the second place, I don't actually see a strong consensus one way or another in that previous discussion -- the numbers taking a view were actually remarkably balanced, though some appear to have had more time on their hands to repeat the same rather limited position over and over again. Jheald (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
JHeald, no-one is suggesting that the English 'YHWH' should not be presented at all in a discussion of the name of God. Rather the question was how the Hebrew tetragrammaton should be rendered in the summary of the commandments which is to go in the first paragraph. I think you can appreciate that would be better served by simply using the rendition which people are most familiar with, in order not to distract from the rest of the summary. The Hebrew bible is not intrinsically more important than the Vulgate, Greek translations or the KJV, and "Ten Commandments" refers to the texts in all of these bibles just as much as to the Hebrew one. Whatever the reasons that the tetragrammaton became kurios/dominus/Lord, Lord is at the moment the most familiar rendition of the tetragrammaton, not just in the bible but in the massive corpus of literary, philosophical and historical writings which draw on the KJV and on earlier translations of the ten commandments, whether the context in which these are read is religious, or otherwise. Lord is of course not the only rendition of the tetragrammaton, and the others should be presented with due weight and certainly not repressed. But not in this particular sentence in the lead of this article. Zargulon (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the fact that this particular religon named their god IS intrinsically important. Maybe the lede is not the place, but somewhere, maybe. As to "quite against the consensus", I think its important to see the difference between "against the consensus" and "views I disagree with". Steve kap (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Critical historical analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. ^ Julius Wellhausen 1973 Prolegomena to the history of Israel Glouster, MA: Peter Smith. 392
  2. ^ "The Bible with Sources Revealed" by Richard Elliott Friedman 2003 pp 5-28
  3. ^ Levinson, Bernard M. (July 2002). "Goethe's Analysis of Exodus 34 and Its Influence on Julius Wellhausen: The Pfropfung of the Documentary Hypothesis". Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 114 (2): 212–223
  4. ^ John Bright 1972 A History of Israel Second Edition. Philadelphia: the Westminster Press. 142-143
    4th edition p.146-147
  5. ^ Bright, John, 2000, A History of Israel 4th ed. p.146
  6. ^ John Bright 1972 A History of Israel Second Edition. Philadelphia: the Westminster Press. 142 4th ed. p.146+
  7. ^ John Bright 1972 A History of Israel Second Edition. Philadelphia: the Westminster Press. 146-147 4th ed. p.150-151
  8. ^ John Bright 1972 A History of Israel Second Edition. Philadelphia: the Westminster Press. 165 4th ed. p.169-170
  9. ^ Morgenstern, Julius (1927), The Oldest Document of the Hexateuch, vol. IV, HUAC.
  10. ^ Bright, John, 2000, A History of Israel 4th ed. p.173
  11. ^ John Bright 1972 A History of Israel Second Edition. Philadelphia: the Westminster Press. 166 4th ed. p.170+
  12. ^ Yehezkal Kaufmann 1960 The Religion of Israel: From its beginnings to the Babylonian Exile trans. and Abridged by Moshe Greenberg. New York: Schocken Books 174-175

Friedman text

Removed Friedman paragraph for several reasons.

  • It does not mention the ten commandments.
  • Looking at the Google books review of The Bible with Sources Revealed, there are a couple of Exodus 20 footnotes on page 153, basically not saying much about 10C's, for instance:
    • "The text of the Ten Commandments here does not appear to belong to any of the major sources. It is likely to be an independent document, which was inserted here by the Redactor."
  • The paragraph appears to be unnecessary duplication of Wikipedia article: The Bible with Sources Revealed#Summary

—Telpardec (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wellhausen - Levinson vs Goethe

Condensed these two paragraphs, added link to JEDP (Documentary hypothesis) article, link to Levinson biography, etc.
—Telpardec (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hittite connection

/* Critical historical analysis */ shifted Hittite paragraph up one, after Bright paragaph which mentions Hittites. Kaufmann paragraph last again.
—Telpardec (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To do list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Major changes

Numbering and two texts of commandments

  • The 2 tables comparing the Exodus and Deuteronomy versions of the commandments, and showing the different numbering schemes have been combined and condensed into a single table.
  • The WP:COPYVIO NRSV has been removed and public domain Authorized Version used, which has the additional advantage of making known the distinction between singular and plural with the 2nd person pronouns. (The commandments are addressed to each individual as an individual.)
  • Per WP:ACCESS each verse is limited to a single row in the table. The previous method with more than 1 verse grouped in a row caused problems with Screen reader users hearing out of order verses when right column verses were 1 screen line shorter than the left. Also, the numbering scheme table with vertical rowspans was useless for informing visually impaired people of the differences.
  • Interpretations, commentary and special footnotes have been eliminated. There are separate sections of the article that make (or can make) known the variations in translation and interpretation.
  • A single table avoids unnecessary repetition of the commandments.
  • There is still some question how closely the 3 numbering schemes are followed by the listed groups, at least in the United States where public display versions usually include Exodus 20:2 as part of the first commandment, rather than a prologue to verse 3. (Some displays avoid problems by not numbering them.)
  • In the old numbering table, the 1st and 3rd columns were the same except the headers identifying the groups. Column A in the new table by Ex.20:2 includes both "pre" (for preface or prologue) and "1" for first, to avoid adding a 4th column for a minor variation.

—Telpardec (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

[Copy of Zargulon's lower comment to above moved here for answer by Telpardec (talk)]
"I don't agree with condensing the two tables, the resultant table has too many types of information, although I might be open to more abbreviation in the existing tables."
The numbering table had duplication of verses and 5 columns, and the new table has verses and 5 columns. There is no difference in that respect. The new table has the same kind of information as the 2nd table, except it has 2 comparison copies of the verses. I see no merit in your argument. —Telpardec (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Intro/Lede revision

  • Since the Talmudic numbering scheme has a non imperative statement as number one, the intro words "series of statements and moral imperatives" address both possibilities.
  • The fact of the making, breaking, and remaking of the tablets has been added.
  • Last known location of the tablets is mentioned.
  • The "problem" paragraph has been revised. (Please tell me you like it! :)
  • The "singular" aspect made known in the footnote on the word "thy" needs to be better addressed in the body of the article IMO.
  • The word "promise" in the old summary of the commandments was not appropriate anywhere except the honour father and mother part, since the Bible elsewhere refers to that as "the first commandment with promise".Ephesians 6:2
  • The 1st sentence of the 3rd paragraph made need some expansion at some time.

—Telpardec (talk) 23:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are making too many changes at once. I don't agree with condensing the two tables, the resultant table has too many types of information, although I might be open to more abbreviation in the existing tables. I don't agree with your changes to the lead or your arguments for them: "I am the Lord your God" indisputably constitutes "religious instruction", so there was no need for that change. I don't agree with your summary of different names for the tablets since it is entirely based on the English which does not make sense after the detailed philological discussion of how these got their names through the renditions in the different intervening languages - although I agree with the idea and I agree that the breaking of the tablets should be mentioned. It is also unclear whether you were using "tablets" and "tables" interchangeably or if these were all direct quotes. It's possible I would agree with some of what you have done, but you cannot expect people to spend the time figuring out all the things you have changed and analyse them and copy-paste them one by one. Zargulon (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
NOTICE: "If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary." The word "happy" in your summary reverting multiple good faith edits explained nothing.
Your comment about "religious instruction" makes no sense. A partial quote is a perfectly good way to begin a summary of the commandments spoken at Sinai. (The scene was more than bold, the description in Ex.19/20 mentions thunderings, lightnings, fire, smoke and trembling. Anyone want to make a graphic animation for the article? :)
Thanks for everyone's patience. —Telpardec (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Your reponses make no sense. Please make your changes one by one, starting with the least controversial ones. Zargulon (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Faith groups" vs "Modern critical historians" ?

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

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

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

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

Where do you see Faith groups opposite Modern critical historians? The third paragraph is the only place where the generic term "Faith groups" appears and only notes that there is some difference among those groups "on the interpretation and numbering of the Ten Commandments".
The second part of that sentence has "modern critical historians" versus "traditional views" on their authorship.
I don't see any mention of fundamentalism. Could you please direct my attention to the part or parts of the article that you would like to see changed? Thanks. —Telpardec (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It was my sense of the construction of the entire article. You may be right that it may not be explicit, and may not be intentional. But it certainly seemed to me that scholarly views were being placed in a very separate box to faith views; and the wording "modern critical historians" or "critical historians' interpretations" seems further to marginalise them -- as if almost to suggest that such views are only current amongst a few historians, and then only those who are "critical". I don't think that impression serves our readership well. (And yes, I am aware that "critical" may well have been intended in its scholarly sense, rather than its common meaning -- but that might still be the nuance that a casual reader might pick up, I think).
So how to integrate this material better? (It could also use more thorough surveying -- the present choice of authorities, particularly for the modern period, is disproportionate haphazard and superficial; and the whole section reads unfortunately like someone's personal essay). One thing to do might be to have more of a discussion about the historical development of the material sooner, rather than to leave it as it appears at the moment like a marginal fringe afterthought. Another might be to come up with a more inclusive term than "modern critical historians". This is after all an issue that cuts across all faith groups, and is mainstream teaching in most theological programmes. Jheald (talk) 09:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Jheald, I agree with you in that many religious people are influenced by critical historical studies, and without doubt some critical historians are religious. I think the mistake is referring to the people 'Faith groups/critical historians', which intrinsically introduces the false dichotomy - it would be better to refer to the concepts 'Religion/Ethics/Critical history' or some such. Zargulon (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I think there is no point discussing your personal opinion about whether the events at Mount Sinai were historical or mythical, and about the editing of the book of Exodus.
What we need for this paragraph to work is a bunch of secondary sources. They are not that easy to find in comparative theology, but it would help. Because otherwise we'll end up simply juxtaposing people's personal opinions. JFW | T@lk 05:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Agreed Drg, I think you should be more specific about desired changes to the article. Zargulon (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV requires us to provide all relevant views. We can lump critical views in one section for editorial reasons, but Drg55 is quite wrong to suggest that modern methods enable us to date or interpret Biblical texts with any certainty, this is why people still (i.e. 35 years after Drg55 went to school) still get PhDs in history or Ancient Near Eastern or Jewish Studies. People have moved beyond Wellhausen and even that project. What we really need is someone who has the time to go to the library and look at the Anchor Bible Exodus, which will still be out of date but nevertheless show the best critical scholarship thirty years ago and might show that there are more significant interpretations than we currently represent in this article. Then, someone to go through the major peer-reviewed journals and see what has been published in the past twenty years. Yes, Drg55, I too went to university and I know what a "myth" is but I also know that current scholarship goes far bewyond Drg55s opinions. And no, rg55, we will not add your original research into the article.
That someone would put down any content in an encyclopedia as "too academic" is just beyond me. The reason we have what we have about Hammurabi is because that is what a leading scholar says. Yes, we need more academic sources for this article. Nor Drg55s fictions. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Drg55, if you have a ref, its not orignal research. But if the ref just leads you to an opinion, the opinion it is original reserach and is not appropriate for WP. I don't know what the case is here. SLR, you ref to Drg55s "fictions", are you the arbitor of whats fact and whats fiction? As to “Drg55… suggest(s) that modern methods enable us to date or interpret Biblical texts with any certainty”… I don’t think certainty is the gold standard here, I think it’s the preponderance of the opinion of educated people that study the matter in question. And, in bible history, it sure does seem like Drg55 knows what he’s talking about, what those opinions are. Steve kap (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
kap, make up your mind who you are disagreeing with here. It was Drg55 who suggested that certainty is the standard. Rephrasing it as "the preponderance of opinion" still gets it wrong - it is an attempt to hide under the rug the diversity of views among modern scholars. Drg55 admits his knowledge is about 35 years out of date. His presentation of Friedman's views show that - Friedman is summarizing what was the leading view around the 1950s or 1960s. To the extent that these views are found in reliable sources, I already put them into the article. My point remains true: Biblical scholarship has moved on quite a bit from Wellhausen's model, and from his project. Most Bible Scholars no longer believe that the reconstruction presented in Friedman is historically sound because it depends on a notion of "authorship" that is anachronistic. If you do not know this, then you do not know what you are talking about. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You betray yourself SLR. In honest discourse, people address issues. So one might disagree with one thing a person says, even if he generally supports that persons views. It is only in partisan bickering that one "makes up his mind" about who to agree with, and disagree with. Steve kap (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
SLR what people are looking for in Wikipedia is a good general article. Thus to go too far down a narrow academic path, you might as well write a book. I think it is possible to allude to information that gets people thinking without saying it is fact. There are various scientific approaches to the Bible, archaeology, text criticism, linguistics, comparitive history. This section is quite good but needs editing down and broadening out.
Your ad hominem comments about me are a little arrogant. Are you a professor of Archaeology or Biblical Studies? I don't think you are an authority. The work I cited is from an authority, Richard Elliott Friedman, and is published in 2005. Friedman comments that some think the documentary hypothesis is old hat, but says he doesn't see any evidence for it. Nor do I, it is clearly obvious to all that do not have a fixed view in the Divine authorship of the Bible.
There are of course Orthodox Jews who are bent on a very political course, Israeli settlement, in view of their idea that Mossiach (end of the world) is coming. I'm pretty tolerant and generally judge people not beliefs, but those that want the world to end are a bit scary. Most of the political chaos in the Middle East can be traced to this group, the Christians in the US that back them, and even the nut in Iran who believes in his own end times. If only it was a personal end, but they want to take us with them. Of course they all base it on the Bible so they don't want questions raised about it. Do these people control this Wikipedia page?
What the hell do you mean by "a notion of 'authorship' that is anachronistic"? Call me old fashioned but I believe that ideas have a source.
What Wikipedia needs is facts and argument. That certain schools of thought take over Universities is meaningless, as we see with the current wreck of world economies thanks to the economic rationalists. There are always various schools of thought that go in and out of fashion, ideas should be freely expressed.Drg55 (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"all that do not have a fixed view in the Divine authorship of the Bible." "There are of course Orthodox Jews who are bent on a very political course, Israeli settlement, in view of their idea that Mossiach (end of the world) is coming." What are you talking about? You must be responding to someone else, obviously not responding to my comments. But don't spout your hypocritical claim that "ideas should be freely expressed" when you want to take sourced academic views out of the article. On the talk page you can express freely ideas about how to improve the article but proposing to add you own original research while deleting academic views is a non-starter. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Slrubenstein,
Same pattern of behaviour "don't spout your hypocritical claim" - you should not be an admin on Wikipedia. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
If you think SLR has violated WP:NPA, why don't you say so rather than making a fuss about this admin status? I think I agree with SLR that Drg55 was away on a tangent there. It would be helpful if we agreed whether to include recent academic perspectives (rather than just the documentary hypothesis). Drg55 may also not be aware that SLR does indeed have an academic background in exactly these subjects. JFW | T@lk 22:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Agree on all counts. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I have put in a hyperlink to the Wikipedia article on the code of Hammurabi, to the pre-existing mention and correcting the spelling of it. I have made a neutral connection that the code of Hammurabi was inscribed on stone stele, fact, without ascribing any theory to that. I have put in a paragraph that gives the fuller version of the documentary hypothesis, rather than just an analysis of the type of laws it is much wider than that, and the reference from Richard Elliott Friedman "The Bible with Sources Revealed" which has a lengthy introduction giving these arguments. I hope it will be seen that these edits are quite reasonable.Drg55 (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

I've restored the paragraph on the development of Goethe et al's view of the Ten Commandments, since it's entirely relevant. Also, this article is about the Ten Commandments, not the Exodus, so please ensure you add material about the former, not the latter. Regarding your personal views of the Ten Commandments, please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Jayjg (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments but I really don't know where you are coming from. The 10C are the pinnacle event of the exodus, you are splitting hairs to say a quote about the facts of the exodus is not a quote about 10C. The events of the 10C include a large body of people living in the desert for 40 years (a mythic perfect number which is used multiple times in the Bible, which should tell you something) only being kept alive by manna from heaven in an environment which would kill you in days. Exodus 12:37, 600,000 men, not counting infants, plus big herds of sheep and livestock. They build a Golden calf, Ex 32:4, would require smelters. This is the context in which Moses presents 10C its part of the story of running a big guilt trip on people to enforce the 10C on them. But there's no evidence for it, I gave the reference.
If you mean discussing whether other moral codes should be put alongside 10C, isn't that exactly what the paragraph you have put back in does? I cut it out because it was wordy, it related to an obsolete point of view and there is not much point disproving an obsolete point of view unless you are an academic, and that's the empty sort of games they play. This section which SLR apparently wrote, is far from a broad summary of different viewpoints on 10C in an article which appears otherwise very faith based. SLR's section should be a separate article in Wikipedia if it is to go to such length because it becomes more a discussion about the documentary hypothesis than 10C.
Actually to suggest a Hittite suzerainty treaty model for 10C is to suggest a date for it contemporary to that around 1400-1100 BCE, does SLR want to put that in? However God wrote the 10C himself (Ex 34:1) on the stone tablets presumably in Paleo-Hebrew alphabet which wasn't invented until 1000 BCE and is based on Phoenecian. Prior to that this culture had a verbal history which usually has strong rules of trusted people learning it by rote and not varying it. Nevertheless the early Hebrews were probably literate in cuniform, the international script of the time. The fact that they took their writing from the Phoenecians suggests that a lot of the positive multicultural aspects of the time have been edited out of the Bible altogether. Let alone the practice of circumcision was picked up from the Egyptians who got it from Africa, or the Mesopotamian myths such as Noah which came from the epic of Gilgamesh. Anyhow the fact that God "wrote" it gives a date of sorts later than the Hittite empire.
Or you might agree that this was an overlay added in later on, but then you would be agreeing with me.
I admit I was spinning out ideas of the development of the myth, hoping that it would lead others to put some references, but I did this myself in the end. Finkelstein and Silberman conclude in the reference I gave: while they date the final version of the story quite late (considering its usually dated the previous millenium) they also state, "To pin this biblical image down to a single date is to betray the story's deepest meaning" (IBID p71).
I don't see why I am getting resistance on a personal level to ideas, but these Myths are the cornerstone of modern Israel as well as broader society. Nevertheless I think we are making progress of sorts.Drg55 (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jayjg that this article should not stray from the 10 commandments into a wider discussion of Exodus, and my friendly advice is not to take that personally. Zargulon (talk) 11:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This article is about the Ten Commandments, not The Exodus. Jayjg (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. Thank you for your help. I have put some dates in the final paragraph. On my "to do" list is to take apart Exodus into its separate streams which I already did for Genesis. In scholarship it is always best to go back to original sources and experience has told me not to trust the statements of even great commentators without checking it out directly. First impression is that there is no mention of 10C in the E source, although plenty about the exodus myth.Drg55 (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding your latest edits, please stop editing the article solely for the purpose of adding links to the Exodus. Also, please don't state POVs as facts using Wikipedia's voice, and please don't use "IBID" in footnotes. Jayjg (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you ever had an original idea in your life? I don't think so. The statement that God inscribed the tablets dates the story. But its not a POV but an obvious fact even if I am the first to state it. This section has been edited down and now has some coherency but I think we are back to square one in regards to a faith based article that states as facts things that are clearly historical alterations, and a small section that makes sure it doesn't go out of its way to shed any truth on the whole picture. Part of that picture is your determination to keep out broader facts such as archaeology.Drg55 (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Encyclopedias are not the place to promulgate original ideas. This amounts to original research. If you want to publish your ideas, please submit them to a peer-reviewed scientific journal in this field of study.
With regards to adding content about archaeology, we can only discuss archaeological data that is directly pertinent to the Ten Commandments (as opposed to the Exodus as a whole, which is what you seem to be doing).
"Have you ever had an original idea in your life?" seems to be a thinly veiled personal attack; this is not helpful, and it would help if you moderated your language. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that is its strength, however Jayjg is abusing his admin status to keep this article to his framework. Facts are not personal ideas. The correct way to write articles for Wikipedia is to keep them factual, let people draw their own conclusions. It is a fact that Israelites had to have had writing before you can have tablets inscribed with 10C. I could have said "If God was perfect (following medieval theological discussions) then he would have written 10C in the international language of the time cuniform, ...or even English".
Interpretations of facts are POVs. While I may have floated some general ideas in discussion in the hope that others could contribute some references on this, this is not what I wrote in the article. Jayjg is using Wikipedia to state his POV with Wikipedia's voice. The archaeological evidence is clear that there is no evidence for the events at Mt Sinai as stated in the Bible. Fact. Only fundamentalists would consider these stories to be true, reference the comments of Jheald at the top of this discussion. The section "Revelation on Mt Sinai" refers to the "Exodus from Egypt", first paragraph. If you are being consistent, why didn't you cut that out?Drg55 (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't need to explain to us what the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia are. You are also incorrect that by editing an article another editor is somehow "abusing his adminstrator status". The only way to do that is by protecting an article or blocking another editor, neither of which apply here.
With regards to your most recent edit,[9] this should be rephrased without the direct quote, because its phrasing is pretty loaded. I don't think that is an unreasonable request. I don't dispute the fact that the absence of an archeological record might need mention. JFW | T@lk 05:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, which direction do you see this going in? I do not set out to be deliberately offensive to people's views but nor do I want to compromise on what the evidence shows. Should I go with: "Archaeology has so far been unable to find evidence to support the presence of Israelis in the Sinai as described in this story, despite intensive exploration." or "There has been a lack of archaeological evidence to corroborate this part of the story suggesting that the story might have evolved over time or simply not happened at all."Drg55 (talk) 04:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Both seem reasonable reflections of the source, without the veiled antireligious undertones of the authors' original phrasing. JFW | T@lk 05:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
These both have problems. The first option would be acceptable if you deleted "as described in this story", since the story doesn't pinpoint its 'Sinai' geographically. Also change 'Israelis' to 'Israelites' of course. The second option is pretty much impossible.. it is too pointy to be fixed. Zargulon (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that the second pointed at all. Seem like it simply presents the state of the evidence, as we know it. Steve kap (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What if we used option 1, and just change "story" to "narrative". A bit of a compromise, but not inaccurate or missleading, I'd say. Steve kap (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Nope- that is not a compromise. Using "narrative" doesn't address the problem. There is nothing wrong with the word "story" anyway, in itself, as far as I am concerned. But no-one knows if the modern "Sinai" where they looked for remains is the "Sinai" referred to in the bible, or if the place referred to in the bible is even supposed to exist. The modern "Sinai" was named relatively recently an the name is not based on a provable correspondence with the Exodus location. Remove "as described in the story" and option 1 is ok. Zargulon (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I dropped the "as described in the story" from option 1 and also added in "although this location is disputed" in respect to Mt Sinai, which I think is just continuing down the path you requested. I put a final sentence that says some of option two expressed as subtly as possible but is fair to points of view expressed by Zargulon and JFW. I put back in the link to the golden calf article which I think is important but does involve a slight change of wording to get it in. I think a critical analysis of the Bible makes it more interesting, but as you point out there are complexities even here. If it makes you feel any better - similar to this, there is no historical evidence for Jesus either and although its just my POV the reliability of the Gospels is quite low having been written several generations after the events, and subsequent to the turmoil of the destruction of Jerusalem (but not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are also very interesting elements, critical analysis should not be seen as just a destructive exercise). Popular items such as "the three wise men" I think were simply inserted into the narrative to impress Zoroastrians who believed a messiah would be foretold by the stars. Its arguable from an analysis of the text, in that it is just a cameo appearance, why don't they appear later in the story, why don't they help Jesus when he needs it? Its probably the most popular part of the myth yet it only appears in one Gospel. People have a right to their myths, true or not, and one has to tread carefully.
So choosing our words well is fine considering sensibilities. Thank you for coming together on this and I hope we are getting closer to a consensus.Drg55 (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Drg, you seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of titanic struggle going on here between people who think that the bible is literally true (who 'have a right to their myths' and whose 'sensibilities' need to be 'considered') and rationalists/skeptics like yourself who believe in historiography. Nothing could be further from the case. Wikipedia does not have to consider anyone's sentiments. It just has to be encyclopedic, and follow its own policies and guidelines. The main relevant ones here are WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:OR. In particular please be careful that you include only material which is specifically related to the ten commandments, and that you accurately report what the sources say without adding your own interpretations or drawing your own conclusions. Zargulon (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Drg, please review Zargulon's comment above, and my own comment of 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC). Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, I’m unclear what specific changes you are proposing by the above comments. Please review NOT A FORUM. Steve kap (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please stop trolling, Steve kap. Specific edits are being discussed. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
A thousand apologies. Both your post and Jays added so much to the conversation, sorry to interrupt.
In defense of Drg55, if he did come across as believing that there was some sort of struggle between biblical literalist and others, I can see where he got that impression. Maybe it’s because the same editors seems to object to any ref to the text as “myth”, any inconsistency pointed out, any criticism of the 10C, any suggestion that these stories never happened. And, that the same people would object to using the name of god, which just so happens to be a taboo in a particular religion. It may be that these people independently and objectively all came up with similar positions, by coincidence, but you can forgive someone who saw the correlation, and jumped to the conclusion that the commonality in position was rooted in a common religious understanding, as unfounded as that conclusion may be. Steve kap (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to take Steve out of his fantasy world and remind him of what he is conveniently forgetting, when an observant Jewish editor came along and tried to make edits which used the orthography "G-d", there was unanimous agreement that this orthography was inappropriate for Wikipedia. It is clearly absurd to suggest that the argument over using "Yahweh" at a particular point in the lead of the article was motivated by a religious taboo, and one would have to be extremely prejudiced to draw that conclusion after looking at this talk page objectively and the actual arguments which editors made. Zargulon (talk)
Lets see, its ok for the article to mention events at Mt Sinai, which is described as a "revelation", as reported in the Bible including a reference to the Exodus, but not ok to say that despite intensive archaeological searches no evidence has been found for Israelites at the Mount or even the whole Sinai peninsula. And then particular offence gets taken that not even a sherd of pottery is found (let alone any other evidence for the exodus as a whole) as though this is some colossal insult rather than a simple statement of fact. And I am supposed to believe that particular editors are not protecting their own point of view and using Wikipedia to forward a faith position which really belongs somewhere else. So then I try to be polite and summarise matters in diplomatic words and get criticised for that too, showing that you can't win with these people either way. Drg55 (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Drg, I advised you not to take that personally and I wish you had followed my advice. I don't object to the statement in this article that no evidence has been found for an ancient Israelite presence in what is now called Sinai, but I can understand the point of view of editors who say that it is not directly enough related to the ten commandments, and it didn't help that your original draft of this statement sounded like it was blowing the whistle on some imaginary tyranny of biblical literalists. Editors are allowed to "protect their own point of view" on WP, provided they follow WP's guidelines. And you don't have the right to "win" all the time. Zargulon (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I saw no indication that Drg55 was taking anything personally. Rather he was realizing, and Zargulon seems to be confirming, that its a mugs game. Editors are playing the reasoning game, but they aren't really reasoning at all. They are using the language of reasoning, but, when that fails, they take great offence, and express their outrage. They are expressing their faith positions. Steve kap (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
If he believed it was a "mug's game", presumably he wouldn't have commented at all, and the same goes for you. Zargulon (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Steve kap, please make more accurate Talk: page statements, and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Well Zargulon can we go back to inserting the following line in the revelation at Sinai section, which you and JFW seemed happy with, and leave it at that? And if you concur will Jayjg also? "Archaeology has so far been unable to find evidence to support the presence of Israelites in the Sinai, despite intensive exploration.[1]" This is not necessarily about winning for me as my pov has always been that some basis of the exodus did occur in the Hyksos period, albeit on a smaller scale and timeline than described. I don't seek to insert this view as I don't have data to support it. However I think a balanced account would make this mention of the archaeology as the whole drama of the 10c is their presentation to the people and the people's failings, which necessitates that they were there. Any archaeologist who found such evidence would attain instant fame and I'm sure its keenly sought.Drg55 (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. The important thing is now to introduce that sentence into the article in such a way that it is clearly relevant to the ten commandments specifically. This is non-trivial.. a fair case can be made that a general discussion of the archaeological remnants for the exodus should go in other articles, e.g. the exodus, or archaeology of the bible. In fact you might find it less frustrating to do exactly that. I don't think it is reasonable to say that the ten commandmandments are so iconic of the exodus that everything related to the exodus is related to the ten commandments. The ten commandments, fundamentally, is a particular biblical passage (x2), whose notability is overwhelmingly theological/moral/ethical, rather than related to its historical or geographical context within the bible story. The Exodus as a whole, by contrast, has an explicit and important geographical and historical context (although these are within the Bible narrative, and there should be no presumption that it refers to archaeological places and times, nor that people believe it does). Zargulon (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Drg55, I thought the comments before were clear. This article is about the Ten Commandments. The material you want to insert is about the Exodus. It does not belong here, per WP:NOR. Jayjg (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll go out on a limb here, and say that the connection between the 10C and the historicity of Exodus, is that the delivery of the 10C is part of the Exodus story. So, in the same way that the delivery story, the ascending of Mout Sinia, the 2 stones, the other 2 stones are a ligite part of this article, so is the fact that it never happened, at least,not according to all archeological evidence. Is that a fair statement? Steve kap (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Does the source Drg is using make that argument about the Ten Commandments? Jayjg (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
No Steve, it's not a fair statement. You are the only person here who is obsessed with whether or not the 10C "happened". Everybody else is just interested in writing an encyclopedic WP article about the 10C which obeys WP policies and guidelines. Please conduct your campaign elsewhere. Zargulon (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
As to "10C "happened"", what I and the archaelogical evidence shows is the the delivery of the 10C never happened. the bad grammar is all "yours". As to the rest, lets do a little thought experiment. Suppose the stone tablets were found. Suppose they were carbon dated to the right era, and people could read them thru from both sides, with neither side being a mirror image, just as Jewish tradition would hold. Suppose there were no doubt archaelogically, these were the one and only 10 commandments, written by GOD's finger, in stone. Do you suppose that, if these were added to the article, you would still protest? Would you be saying "the historiciy of the story has nothing to do with this article". Do WP policies, so far not stated, forbid only arcahaleogical evidence that say this bit of history never happened? As to Jayjg's point, if I'm told my dog is dead, do I then have to ask if her tail is dead too? 20:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)
Steve, if you are trying to suggest that I am defending a literalist interpretation of the bible, anyone can read my edits on this page and see that suggestion is absurd. Please stop raving about dogs and tails, no one has any idea what you mean. Zargulon (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Proving a negative is really hard, to the point that it is epistemologically impossible. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
True. Further, proofs outside of mathematics are almost always impossible. That's why scientists don't go for proofs, they look for the preponderance of the evidence, the most parsimonious explanation for the facts observed. Archaeologists are the experts in this case. They are telling us, overwhelmingly, that the most parsimonious explanation for this set of facts is that the Exodus never happened. I think this much we can agree on. The only debate seems to be if this should be part of the article or not.
As to Z's comments, I'll take them as an expression of his frustration, having run out of rational arguement, the poor dear. Steve kap (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
If 'proofs outside mathematics are almost always impossible', then what did you mean by 'suppose there were no doubt archaeologically'.. why are you asking other editors to suppose something which is almost always impossible? Is that part of 'rational argument' in your mad fantasy world. Zargulon (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll take these in turn:
"If 'proofs ...." There really is no "if" about it. They are.
"what did you mean by 'suppose there were no doubt archaeologically'" -- No doubt archaeologically doesn't mean the same thing as a proof.
"why are you asking other editors to suppose something which is almost always impossible?"-- Its called a thought experiment. You might have gotten that from where I wrote "...lets do a little thought experiment."
The rest, about my mad world, I'll take as an expression of ill humor, and not address it, excpet to say we might have a more fuitfull conversation if you'd please address the points that I've made, rather than speculate about my mad world. I'll continue to answer question that you might raise, as a curtsey to you, but I'm not sure they are of much general interest. I'd rather discuss the article, not the discussion. Steve kap (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll also take these in turn:
"Proofs outside the mathematical domain are almost always impossible": Every year thousands of putative murderers in the western world are proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and sent to jail for life. I hope you're not planning to free them all on the grounds that the proof is almost always impossible? Or would you claim that those proofs were "mathematical"?
What can be the point of a thought experiment whose premise is something impossible?
"mad world" stuff: Fine. Zargulon (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh my dear friend. Would you really have me believe that you can’t tell the difference between a mathematical proof, for which JWF’s “you can’t prove a negative” might apply, and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” and “no doubt archaeologically..” which don’t really deal with proofs at all, in the mathematical sense, but rather with the weight of the evidence? I suppose “assume good will” requires me to do so, but I think it rather more charitable to assume that you’re disingenuous. The “you can’t prove a negative” cliché the JWF trotted out, it is often used when the evidence starts to stack against some persons pet propose, but it’s only true in the mathematical sense of a proof (not always so even then, but no matter…) . Notice that the cliché doesn’t make the evidence go away. And when one looks for something and don’t find it, that IS evidence. Despite the other cliché, absents of evidence, with a proper search, IS evidence of absence. It’s just not proof of absents. Proofs, as I’ve stated many times, are for mathematicians. (and, to help Jaydj out, this has to do with whether or not to include evidence that the Exodus and therefore the delivery of the 10C never happened in the article). Steve kap (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The finding of archaeological evidence for the events at Mt Sinai would give a tangible date. We have a situation where a date is alluded to by the form of the 10C as a Hittite treaty, I read elsewhere for instance that the two tablets would represent a copy for the vassal and one for the Lord which was how the Hittites did things. Then we have what appears to be a majority opinions that date the story to 6-800 years later on. Many things are possible. The 10c could be older than the exodus and have been added into it. On the other hand if we look at the content of the 10C it seems to be the establishment of a theocratic state which is consistent with the early Jerusalem period. Then there is a certain formularic quality to the failures of the Israelites that recurs through the Biblical story that might represent a particular scholar from the past putting this in, that might be post-exilic thought. My comments about the different versions of the story from J and E do have a source in the book The Bible with Sources Revealed by Richard Elliot Friedman, I admit it was a bit sloppy and I could do a reference based on a complete study of it some other time. Yes there is more that relates to the exodus in the archaeology source, particularly the peripheral political events which are referred to in the exodus story which suggest the 7th century BCE date, as you say it doesn't relate to these specific matters. I can also say from doing a bit of a general look around that I can understand the reactions from JFW to the word "myth" based upon some of the "theories", one I saw was Moses was the chief priest of Akenaton. I prefer to stick to tangible data.
But the Revelation at Sinai section of the article does refer to these events, so I am happy to work this around until we do get some agreement on it. Here's another try: "Archaeology has so far been unable to find evidence in relation to these events.[2]" Finkelstein is the head of archaeology at Tel Aviv University and Silberman is an editor of Archaeology magazine so these are mainstream reliable sources.Drg55 (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
This is still ok by me although I suggest 'in relation to the tablets' because that refers directly to the ten commandments. Also 'events' could be said to suggest factuality, just as much as 'myth' or 'story' could be said to suggest fictionality. Zargulon (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Drg55, this material is simply not going into the article until you show what the authors say about the 10Cs. Nothing else. This is an article about the Ten Commandments, and the sources used will specifically discuss the Ten Commandments. Now, please quote what the authors say about the Ten Commandments. Jayjg (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Zargulon, Jayjg do you realise you are in a group of one? Why are you so dictatorial, putting bold emphasis on "not"? All that I am doing here is balancing out a part of the article.
Putting positive proposals: "Archaeology has so far been unable to find evidence for the Israelites in the Sinai." or "Archaeologists have so far been unable to identify the Mountain or find evidence for a camp." The article mentions these details in all three paragraphs of the Revelation at Sinai section.Drg55 (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
"Proposals" can't be evaluated without knowing what the sources say on the subject. Per WP:NOR, please quote what the authors say there about the Ten Commandments, which is the subject of this article. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I have referred this discussion to the arbitration committeeDrg55 (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No you haven't. At any rate, this is a content dispute. JFW | T@lk 19:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only question raised is how this material relates to the 10C. I think the answer to that is pretty clear, the delivery of the 10C is part of the Exodus story, and this material relates to the Exodus story. I’d say that if this material pertains to other material in the article, (and it does, “Moses… conveyed God’s commandments.. the third month after their exodus from Egypt”) then its relevant, I don’t see why the source needs to mention the 10C by name. Is such a specific reference really a requirement? Steve kap (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:NOR, the material needs to be "directly related to the topic of the article". This material appears to be only indirectly related to the topic of the article. Of course, it's quite easy to prove me wrong, if I am indeed wrong; simply quote what the cited sources say about how this material relates to the Ten Commandments. Jayjg (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Well,,,where the main point of the article ends an a tangent begins can be debated by people of good will. Are the circumstances of the delivery of the 10C directly related or indirectly related. If they are indirect, should we not delete all of them? If direct, are we required to only state the narrative, no archeological findings supporting or detracting? It seems to me that you want to draw the line so that legend falls within it, and arheology fall outside of it. That does seem right to me. Steve kap (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
The topic of this article is undisputably "The Ten Commandments". Material in the article needs to be directly related to the topic. It need not, however, be explicitly related to the topic; it can be directly but implicitly related to the topic, and this like everything can be determined by a consensus of editors. Nonetheless if an implicit connection is being proposed, there is more burden of proof to show that the connection is direct and the material is substantively relevant. If the source explicitly mentions the 10C then that makes things much easier. Does the source explicitly mention the 10C..? Zargulon (talk) 22:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
What if a published 2nd source specificly sites the reserach in question to say that the delivery of the 10C, per the naratvie, never happened. Would that be enough to show how this research relates to the 10C? Steve kap (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm Pretty sure that in C. Hitchens GOD IS NOT GREAT, he cites the same evidence, to say that it, the Exodus story, the delivery of the 10C, the stones, the whole bit, never happened. So, that would be a nice 2nd source I'd think. Does anyone have the book, to give a proper citation? Steve kap (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman (2002). The Bible Unearthed, pp 62-3.
  2. ^ Israel Finkelstein, Neil Asher Silberman (2002). The Bible Unearthed, pp 62-3.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ten_Commandments/Archive_9&oldid=1144316524"