h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Ritual Decalogue versus the Ethical Decalogue - A30188577
Author: Giford - U187177

This is some 'excess material' from an Entry on the Ritual Decalogue, which is currently in PR. The article is at A30188612 and the review thread is at F48874?thread=4941433 .

That article was getting swamped with info on the arguments over which version is the 'real' Ten Commandments, so I have made it into the separate Entry you see here.

Gif

(This is picking up a conversation started in the other PR thread listed above.)

Hi Leo,

>>it is explicit that the words of God are unchanged, and are the same on both sets of tablets.<<

- provide source for explicitness?

Deut 10:2-4, already referenced several times in the Entry. I've put a footnote in as well.



>>the Ritual Decalogue begins by describing itself as a covenant, and the same word is used to describe the words carved in stone.<<

- Aw c'mon, that's not proof. There are covenants scattered all over the Bible. It could be a new one, a la Nachmanides.

True, if we had 'proof' one way or the other this would be a much shorter Entry! The text says (paraphrasing) 'I will make a covenant ... [Ritual Decalogue] ... now write *this* covenant, which is the Ten Commandments'. It's not just the same word, the text says (quoting directly) 'these words', seemingly the ones just referred to. There is certainly no mention of any other words or covenants. I've changed the text a little anyway.



>>Furthermore, it is explicitly stated in Exodus that Moses wrote the Ten Commandments - if Moses wrote the Ritual Decalogue, then it follows that the Ten Commandments are the Ritual Decalogue.<<

- Moses is supposed to have written the five books of the Pentateuch. So he would have written the Ritual Decalogue *anyway*.

Have amended to 'carved the Ten Commandments'.



>>This follows a line of reasoning dating back to the 13th Century Jewish scholar Nachmanides.

- Er, no, that's not his version. His version is that God made a new covenant there in the presence of the unwritten-upon second tablets, delineating the 10 Most Important Rituals to Keep, after which Moses sat down and wrote the Ethical Decalogue into the tablets.

OK, removed reference to Nachmanides from this section. Would it be fair to put him back in the section on there being a break between the RD and the phrase 'Ten Commandments'? I've already mentioned one modern scholar there who seems to hold a similar view, that the RD was carved on the back of the ED. If his claim is substantially different, then I'm not clear on how. While there are a few websites on him (not leastly Wikipedia), I can't find anything on his views on the RD, so I'm only going by what you're saying.




- the "claim" (as you derogatorily put it) is simply an observation that follows a "natural reading" of the text. Let's face it - whatever you say about the smoke and fire accompanying the Ethical Decalogue, there is *absolutely* no smoke nor fire accompanying the Ritual Decalogue.

The trouble is that there is no fire accompanying the ED either, you need to deduce it as you note below. The only place that does have fire and also involves God carving words on stone tablets is clearly not a contender for the Ten Commandments (Ex 24-31). 'Claim' is not intended as derogatory, but I've changed it anyway.



>>Naturally, it is not quite so simple, and most commentators find this to raise more problems than it solves. Exodus 19 mentions God speaking to Moses from fire, but Moses then descends the mountain and God gives the Ethical Decalogue to the Hebrews as a whole in the form of a thunderous cloud, closely matching the smoke in Exodus 34.

- Most? Who are these people?

OK, I was trying to avoid saying either 'It seems obvious to me' (which is personal) or 'This means' (which makes it sound like an unquestioned fact). I have changed the wording here.









OK, here we go on the Hebrew words.

You've made quite a big deal of the differences between 'cloud' and 'smoke'. In fact, I think it's fair to say that the claim about God delivering the Ten Commandments from 'out of the fire' depends upon the idea that the 'smoke' described in the ED section implies fire, but the 'cloud' described in the RD section does not.

The trouble is that the Biblical text doesn't make any such clear distinction. God is frequently described as 'cloud', 'smoke', 'thick darkness', 'fire', 'lightning' and/or 'thunder'. All these terms are used pretty much interchangably. If you want a specific example of where God is described as both 'cloud' and 'fire' simultaneously, look at Ex 24 (last few verses).

'In 20:18 word 'arafel' - means thick smoke'

This is exactly what I'm talking about - that verse has thunder, lightning and thick smoke. Sounds like thick smoke = thundercloud to me.

I think you've misquoted some of your Biblical refs too:

'I'm in Exodus 20:15 word 'lapidim' - means flames, usually large, like on torches'

Exodus 20:15 is 'Thou shalt not steal'

'In Deuteronomy 8:19 word eish - means fire word anan - means cloud word - arafel - means thick smoke also mentions 'kol gadol' (great/strong sound) while Exodus 20 mentions 'kolos' (sounds).'

Deut 8:19 - 'And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.'

'Notably, only 'anan' (cloud) appears in the description of Moses' trip for the second tablets. And 'anan' appears everywhere.'

But God is also described as 'fiery' elsewhere. The two terms are used pretty much interchangably. The first time I read this through, I simply got an impression of what you call 'pyrotechnics' - God appears in a big, smokey, cloudy, fiery, thunderous thing which is described in various ways in various places. Of course, that's just my personal impression.

So this all rests heavily on 'smoke' implying fire but 'cloud' implying no fire and a later verse saying that the Ten Commandments were spoken out of fire. But as we've seen, God is described as both 'cloud' and 'fire' simultaneously elsewhere. And we need to take that over those places where the word 'fire' is actually used in conjunction with carving in stone, e.g. Ex 31. It's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? By this logic, we should conclude that the Ten Commandments consist of several chapters of dimensions of the Ark and the Tabernacle!

I don't see how you can get so specific about exactly when the word 'fire' is used and then try to gloss over the fact that the word 'fire' isn't used in Ex 20 where you need it to be!

I would propose that I cover all the above with a much, much less detailed line in the Entry saying something along the lines of 'There is also debate over whether the exact wording of Deut 10 refers to Ex 20'.




You're welcome to scan the text if you think it would help, but I don't read Hebrew.

On an (almost) completely unrelated topic, if the ED commandments are so clearly separated in the orginal Hebrew, why are there different versions between Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Orthodox Christians? Were the breaks inserted later or dropped from some texts?

Gif

>>I've already mentioned one modern scholar there who seems to hold a similar view, that the RD was carved on the back of the ED. If his claim is substantially different, then I'm not clear on how.<<

I'm really not clear on which part is not clear. Nachmanides isn't saying the RD was on the second tablets. He's saying that the *mention* of the RD and the *writing* of the ED are *two separate incidents* that happened consecutively while Moses was up for the second time. (1)God and Moses talk about the RD, after which (2) Moses carves the ED. Connection? Zero.



>>'I'm in Exodus 20:15 word 'lapidim' - means flames, usually large, like on torches'

-Apologies. It's also 20:18. Which I have as: "And the entire nation saw the thunder and flames and the sound of the ram's horn and the mount covered in smoke and they saw and feared and stood at a distance."
Do you have something different after "thunder"?

Also: Ex:19:18 - fire.

Which answers:
>>don't see how you can get so specific about exactly when the word 'fire' is used and then try to gloss over the fact that the word 'fire' isn't used in Ex 20 where you need it to be!<<

Also what follows:


Apologies again. Check Deaut: 5:4-5, which I have as: Face to face God spoke with you on the mountain from among the fire. And I stood between you and God at that time to tell you the words of God because you feared from the fire and didn't go up on the mountain...


Then: Deaut:5:19 "And these things God said to the entire assembly at the mountain from among the fire and cloud and smoke and the great sound that didn't end and they were carved on the two stone tablets and given to me."
- PS: wasn't there somewhere that you took to task the idea that they were carved on stone? Here's a source.

On to Deaut:5:20 "When you heard the voice from among the dark and the mountain engulfed in flames and all your leaders and elders gathered to me"
Also read 21, 22, 23 - fire fire fire.




Regarding ex24:16-18: It's a point, and I'll grant it to you, but not without quibbling:
16 says the Glory of God rested etc etc in a cloud while
17 says that it appeared as a fire to the people.

Appearing and being aren't anywhere near the same thing. Additionally, the very necessity of specifying would suggest that it requires specifying, therefore it follows that it is unusual.




>>And we need to take that over those places where the word 'fire' is actually used in conjunction with carving in stone, e.g. Ex 31.

- I don't see any fire in 31. It's just commandments after which it says Moses took the tablets and went down. And if anything, this supports the Nachmanides view, because it describes so much happening up there besides the actual carving.

If we agree that everything God told Moses on the mount was *not* written on the tablets, then why is it so hard to believe that the RD was among those things?



>>On an (almost) completely unrelated topic, if the ED commandments are so clearly separated in the original Hebrew, why are there different versions between Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Orthodox Christians? Were the breaks inserted later or dropped from some texts?<<

- The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that the breaks are there from at least the time of the Second Temple period. Beyond that I can't tell you.

Hi Leo,

OK, I think we're actually quite close to agreement here. I'll answer your specific questions and requests for clarification (where I can) here, then I'll do a post where I'll put a suggested text for the middle section of the article. You can take a look, post an amended version if you like, and then perhaps we can put this to bed.

I'm also going to add your name to the article - I think it's fair to say that you have had a pretty substantial input to it! (Let me know if you think it's such an abomination that you don't want to be associated with it )

A couple of fairly minor points first, which I don't think affect the article much. Then onto the 'fire' thing, which I think is the only real source of trouble left.



'Do you have something different after "thunder" [in Ex 20:18]?'

Yes, the KJV says 'the thunderings, and the lightnings'.



'PS: wasn't there somewhere that you took to task the idea that they were carved on stone? Here's a source.'

No, I just mentioned that the original ED is spoken to all Israel, whereas later the Ten Commandments are said to have been carved. In my opinion, there are contradictory stories as to what was carved by who - both God and Moses are explicitly said to have carved the second set of Commandments (Ex 34:28 and Deut 10:4), for example. But I'm not interested in writing an article on 'Minor Inconsistencies in the Old Testament' - I mention this only to support my case that any Biblical exegesis that relies heavily on inferences drawn from a single word is pretty doubtful.



'The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that the breaks are there from at least the time of the Second Temple period.'

Ta.



'Also: Ex:19:18 - fire. Which answers:
>>don't see how you can get so specific about exactly when the word 'fire' is used and then try to gloss over the fact that the word 'fire' isn't used in Ex 20 where you need it to be!<<'

No, you've misunderstood my point - this reference to 'fire' is a chapter before the ED and in reference to a different trip Moses makes up the mountain. God speaks to Moses as 'fire', they have a barney, Moses descends the mountain, then God speaks the ED to all the Hebrews in the form of smoke. Thus, God is not specifically described as giving the ED as 'fire'.



'I don't see any fire in 31.'

Sorry, my sloppy wording. Ex 24-31 is a single, continuous speech by God. It ends with God writing on tablets (Ex 31), but the references to fire and cloud are from the end of Ex 24:

"And Moses went up into the mount, and a *cloud* covered the mount. And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the *cloud* covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the *cloud*. And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring *fire* on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
And Moses went into the midst of the *cloud*, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights."



'if anything, this supports the Nachmanides view, because it describes so much happening up there besides the actual carving.'

Fair enough, and there's a break of 40 days and 40 nights after the RD also, which would also support Nach's view. I'll add that in.



'[Ex] 16 says the Glory of God rested etc etc in a cloud while 17 says that it appeared as a fire to the people.'

As you say, that [the distinction between being and appearing]'s a quibble - it's pretty clear that the Bible doesn't make much distinction between clouds and fire in this section. I don't really see how a cloud can appear as fire - the other way around I could understand, if there was a fire but they only saw the smoke. Again, to me this suggests a smokey, fiery, thundery, lightningy column.

I don't understand what you mean by 'Additionally, the very necessity of specifying would suggest that it requires specifying'.



So, to surmise, we have plenty of references to 'fire', 'clouds' and 'smoke', but none of the Decalogues specify that they are or are not 'given from fire', so that doesn't help narrow down which one is referred to as the Ten Commandments by linking to Deut 10. The other examples you gave don't specifically state that they are referring to the Ten Commandments. (Part of the point of the article is that it's not totally clear what was carved on the tablets - just the Ten Commandments, something else or the Ten Commandments and something else.)



Gif

OK, extensive changes made to the middle section. I haven't included all the detail on exactly which word is used where, but I think I've captured the gist of it. As always, if you disagree then let me know.

I hope the Entry is now:

Comprehensive
Balanced
Clear
Better written

If not, please let me know.

I've added Leo to the Researchers list. It seems to have taken my name off the Researchers list though (I'm now appearing as Editor) which seems a little odd - have I done something wrong? (Meantime you should be able to edit the Entry Leo - but please don't!)

Inserted sub-headers in the 'popular views' section.

Changed book names to abbreviations on 2nd and subsequent uses. (I'm getting sick of typing 'deuteronomy'!)

Please, please, please tell me I have the right end of the stick on what Nahmanides' opinion is now - if not, could you write out what you think the article should say at this point?

Gif

'I've added Leo to the Researchers list. It seems to have taken my name off the Researchers list though (I'm now appearing as Editor) which seems a little odd - have I done something wrong? (Meantime you should be able to edit the Entry Leo - but please don't!)'

No, this is exactly how it's supposed to happen. When it goes to a Sub, you're be returned to the list of writers. Leo won't be able edit it in any case, so don't panic!

The person who can edit the entry (that's you, Gif) is listed as the editor. You didn't notice before, because there was only one name. Now you've listed Leo as an author, but Leo doesn't have editing rights, so she's down as a writer and researcher.

When this is picked, the subeditor will create a new entry containing the text of this entry. The sub will be listed as editor, and both you and Leo will be listed as writers.

There can be as many writers listed on an entry as you want, but there can only ever be one editor, and that person is the only person who can edit Normal entries.

One the sub's copy of this entry attains Edited status, the sub will lose the power to edit it, and the curators will gain this power. So once it's edited, there's no point moaning at the sub to change things: you'll have to go to EF instead.

TRiG.

Gif

Fascinating entries, and really really great PR thread, thanks guys

Fascinating.

Stumbling across this I mean.

Congrats Gif on your entry, and your christ like patience in writing your entry and dealing with the subsequent proceess of getting it made official.

If I ever had any doubts about not wishing to contribute to the EG, this thread and the related one have re-assurred me that someone like me, although highly intelligent, and more than able to contribute to h2g2 discussion, I wouldn't in a trillion years be to go through all this and remain civil. As you know Gif I have explained to you about my temperement which would not in the least be suited to this process. I didn't have a problem at university in gaining either of my two good degrees. I respected my tutors and the system. But I was most definitely never a 'saint' in dealing with others' excessive pedantry.

I am a straight talking limey from a roughish part of south east London and we tend to call it how we see it. I admire you Gif for your restraint. I honestly couldn't begin to measure up to it in the face of what I've seen you have to deal with here and the previous linked thread. And that's why I have NO intention of *EVER* contributing to the EG myself. If I had to deal with similar tedious pedentry I'd be put on pre-mod before you could say, DNA...

But good on you Gif. Congratulations!

What really makes me think the whole process is utterly ridiculous is that at the top of this thread it says,

Entry: The Ritual Decalogue versus the Ethical Decalogue - A30188577
Author: Giford - U187177

But on the actual entry is says,

Written and Researched by:

Leo

Edited by:

Giford

That makes no sense to me. Another good reason I would never dream of contributing to this system. I would have been laughed out of university if I cited authorship of articles in this way.

And if H2G2 ever expects me to go to all the trouble of writing something, only for some other bloke to get described as the writer and researcher.....And suddenly you are described as just the editor.....

I'm so pleased I'm *never* going to get involved with this utter nonsense. If I write something I expect to be credited with it, whether it be an essay or a book or an article on h2g2. Not some other 'johnny'.

Hi Effers,

The Entry appears that way because I've set it up that way - look at posts 5 & 7 for an explanation. Usually I would appear as author, and on the Edited Entry (assuming it get there!) Leo and I will both be listed as authors.

And pedantic picking through an Entry is a good way to ensure that it's accurate. This entire Entry wouldn't exist but for Leo's presentation of a series of counter-arguments to the 'Other 10 Commandments' Entry. I think PR improves Entries, mine included.

I have 'Christ-like' patience only if you're thinking of the incident with the money-changers...

Thanks for dropping by, and don't give up on your own Entries just yet!

Gif

No worries Gif. I was only surprised at the *tone* of the critical process given the context of such an article, full of quite precise facts and discussion points. I'm all for argument and sorting through things to arrive at the best possible result. It's of course inevitable that with such an article as this one, that there will be certain discussion neccessary to ascertain how accurately the facts are presented.

I'm certainly not objecting to the PR process itself and believe it to be absolutely neccessary. I just know that if 'Leo' communicated in such a style with me I wouldn't bother continuing, and I'd tell him/her where to go. If I was writing a book and was expecting a publisher to risk publishing a work with all that that involves, including their reputation not to mention the financial outlay, it wouldn't be a problem. If I was expecting to be awarded an academic qualification, it would also not be a problem. But if I put a lot of work into something for it to become part of the EG on h2g2, I wouldn't put up with someone speaking to me in that tone. It doesn't surprise me that a lot of researchers are not in the least interested in contributing.

I'm certainly no woos as you know when it comes to vigorous debate; I'm just speaking about the specific context of the process of contributing to the guide on h2g2. My preference would be for a more fun, intelligent, humorous and ironic style to the process.

I also would not put up with someone else being described as a 'co-author'. I think that is inaccurate and misleading to anyone reading the article; ironic in that so much trouble is taken over the accuracy of the facts in the article itself. I think the creative brain behind any project should be properly credited as superior in importance.



I like the fact you mentioned the incident with the money changers. The only time Jeeze apparently showed any sort of ballsiness and passion in an active way, as opposed to his rather passive 'passion' when nailed on the 'tree'. I've often mentioned that incident myself to people in terms of it being his most impressive moment, as far as I'm concerned.



And no I won't be contributing any entries anytime soon, but shall continue with my usual vigorous and creative debating style in discussion on the threads. I feel I contribute most effectively to this site in that forum rather than the EG. But I can appreciate your talent and ability for contributing here.



As they say, 'it takes all sorts to make ....etc'

Um, in case you missed it, Effers, Giford *offered* to put Leo in the list - post 5. I suppose not everyone is so proprietary about their entries

As for Jesus displaying passion, how about the fig tree thing?

*Looks it up*

Matthew 21:18-22

Jesus withers a fig tree for not having fruit on it when he's hungry

>>Um, in case you missed it, Effers, Giford *offered* to put Leo in the list - post 5. I suppose not everyone is so proprietary about their entries <<


Yes that's because gif is so saintly

But apart from my narkiness about it, I still maintain that's very inaccurate and misleading. And too right if I ever contribute I'll be appropriately proprietary about 'my' contribution. Nothing wrong with that.

That's entirely your own choice

I believe you're selling yourself short now, saying you can't debate on a logical, non-emotional level when push comes to shove. Give it a try! You may not "get your own way" all the time, but it probably makes for better entries

Sorry, I'll stop topic-drifting now.

But I believe the decision to split this into two entries was a good one, as well as putting Leo in as a co-author for this section, as a lot of the research is Leo's, it seems.

>>Sorry, I'll stop topic-drifting now.<<

See now why are you apologising for that? That's what so great about this site. What is the hell wrong with a bit of topic drift? It just comes across to me that the moment people start communicating in this area of h2g2, everything goes way too anal.

Yes of course the actual articles need to be accurate; particularly such a one as this. But why the hell can't the actual process of assessing an article be more fun? Like I say I would put up with this 'atmosphere' were I studying for a degree, (I have done), or a book being published. But why in this context?

And I'm being realistic about what puts lots of really talented and able people off contributing. No-one is saying the *end product* doesn't have to be really high quality. I'm certainly not suggesting that. I'm speaking about the *process*.

For my second degree I was priviledged to have the benefit of really talented and creative tutors tutoring me. But they didn't feel the need to be ultra anal and lacking in any humour to get their points across. Very much the opposite. My experience is that the most intelligent and able people are quite happy to be superficially light hearted and humorous in order to make really *serious* points. And being like that makes for much greater inclusiveness.

All this humourless pedantic style of criticism is just so uncreative, unintelligent and ultimately dull.

There's a difference between being "anal", "pedantic" and "humourless" and keeping a debate on-topic, courteous, and professional.

I'll gladly listen to someone who says "You need to check your facts, here's a reference that says X about Z, not Y" than someone who just says "ur st00pid"

h2g2 is a vast place. This particular little corner of it is dedicated to helping Giford polish and excellent entry. So dragging it away from that would be just plain impolite.

But then I don't even have a first degree...

Any constructive ideas for making it more "fun", while keeping the points that need to be made clear and concise and not taking things onto a personal level?

hey no worries about Gif, he and I are good friends. He knows me well enough. That's why I like him so much because even though his 'style' is so different to mine in debate, he recognises my intelligent input which is on the surface very different to his.

Yes you're right, I shouldn't have been personal about 'Leo'. It's just my irritation with the tone of threads like this. I think that it's just not neccessary, ni order to get one's points across to be so dreary and dull. I am actually very confident about my intellect, but I just can't be bothered going through all this atmosphere in order to contribute to the EG. I don't suffer fools.

Any suggestions?

Yes, a more humorous and lively style of criticism.

I ABSOLUTELY would want a totally rigorous and honest review from my peers if I submitted something. And if someone like me, who is essentially confident in their intellect feels no desire to contribute, is it any wonder that far less confident people really can't be bothered?

The way things are going, I can see h2g2 EG, sooner or later dying a death.




I think I've said all I need to say for now here. I'll think about things for a bit.

Pshaw, Effers. I also showed considerable restraint. Though I do appreciate Gif's positive response.

Nice entry, Gif. Has a more balanced feel, though possibly tipping over in the opposite direction. Facts that I know of look right. And thanks for the credit. I think I might just keep it.