Talk:Ritual Decalogue

message: Given how respected Ginsberg is, we should probably cover this. (I think it was his last book.) However, I can only access snippets of it in GoogleBooks, and haven't yet found a copy. 
Ah, I can splice a bit more of it together from a quotation in Smith (1997) The pilgrimage pattern in Exodus, p. 234: 
H.L. Ginsberg (1982) The Israelian heritage of Judaism, p46:
:What is more important is that the phrase "and all the rules" (w't kl hmšpṭym) which follows "all the words of YHWH" at the end of v. 3 is an interpolation, since it is wanting after the other mentions of the said "words" in 3b, 4, and 8 end. Its purpose is to [include the 'rules' (mišpaṭim) of 21.1–23.9 in the covenant of 24.3-8; but that was not the original intention of this passage. For the E elements in 24.12-18; 31.18–34.28, which relate how Moses went up to the mountain of God for forty days and nights in order to receive 'the tablets of stone on which I have inscribed the] teachings and commandments to instruct them," conclude by revealing that the tablets contained nothing other than "the terms of the covenant, the Ten Words" (34:28), and this phrase can only refer to "The First Ritual Decalogue,"62 Exod. 23:10–27. 
:62 This term, as also (so far as I know) the very discovery that Exod. 23:10 ff. is a decalogue, is my own. The practice has hitherto been—in emulation of Johannes Wolfgang Goethe, Zwei wichtige bisher unerörterte biblische Fragen, zum ersten Mal gründlich beantwortet von einem Landgeistlichen in Schwaben, dated Feb. 6, 1773—to speak of "The Ritual Decalogue" and to apply the term to the covenant of Exod. 34:10–27. But the whole of Exod 34:10–27 is an interpolation which owes its existence to a post-Deuteromic writer, as will be demonstrated in Chapter VI. Note, therefore, that Exod 34:1 says that YHWH—not, like v.27, that Moses—will write on the tablets, and that without the intrusion of vv. 10–27 the natural referent of "and he wrote" in v.28b is the "YHWH" of v.28a. It follows that "the terms of the Covenant, the Ten Words" means the ritual decalogue of 23:10ff., whose constituent elements are identified p. [...]
— kwami (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: In a statement now in Archive 2, steve kap was highly critical of the "Interpretations" section, and I think some of his criticisms were reasonale.  I think this is good research and precisely the kind of work we need to make the "interpretation" section more scholarly.  Ginsberg was an important scholar, although dated, and it is important to provide this scholarship in its proper context. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Content aside, only talking about format, shouldn't it be folded in with the "Academic Interpretation" section?  Otherwise, it has the impression that eductated people think this, un educated people think that. Which I don't think is the case. Steve kap (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps the whole "interpretations" and "academic interpretations" should be merged? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's useful to distinguish interpretation of the RD as a whole from the individual laws. We need better section titles, though. — kwami (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Untrue.  Though if you can find a reliable source that backs you up, you can mention that opinion.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? How can an opinion be "untrue"? And why would any source address the outline of a Wikipedia article? — kwami (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another "Ritual Decalogue" 

message: The last paragraph of the Academic Interpretation section reads
Several scholars believe that the commandment numbered 8 above is a later addition, for here Passover called by its modern name. Elsewhere none of the feasts have their modern names; Passover, for example, is called the Feast of Unleavened Bread in commandment 3.
Number of issues with this. First, no citations. Second, it refers to commandment numberings "above" which are not in the text above it. Third, there is a confusion between Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread. The Passover (Pesach) is the lamb sacrifice ritual and feast which occurs the evening before the Feast of Unleavened Bread. By the modern times, the two have been conflated and both are often referred to as Passover (even the Wikipedia article on Passover fails to clearly differentiate the two). The Ritual Decalogue text does not conflate the two (which is evident, for example, in the sacrifice being required to be consumed by the morning, whilst Hag HaMatzot is not a one evening feast, but rather lasts a week). Whatever the source is for this assertion (again, no citation is given), the source would seem to not be a reliable source if it does not know there is a difference between Pesach and Hag haMatzot. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passover & Unleavened Bread 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ritual Decalogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527163818/http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A31699344 to http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A31699344
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified