Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 1

message: Can anyone tell me why half of the introductory paragraph is devoted to explaining the Muslim position?  It just seems very out of place, and probably ought to be moved somewhere to the bottom of the article, along with (or probably after) the Jewish, Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic positions. Ben
:I do think it's informative to include at least a bit about Islam, so I put back a little bit in parentheses.
But does it need to be in the introductory paragraph?  Certainly there's plenty of criticism in the Qur'an article, but it's all down towards the end.  Ben
:Ben may have discovered something about Islam. Does this seem to be a general trend at Wikipedia? Wetman 14:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Islam.

message: Regarding this statement: Roman Catholics have criticized the Orthodox veneration of icons ? When did they, and who exactly? I'm not aware of any such criticism, and would be glad to learn of it. Wesley 22:10 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC) (shifted into this section for its logical context.Wetman 14:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a lot more could be said about iconoclasm. In fact, there's already a separate article on the subject. I suggest a brief mention here, since it is relevant, and a link to the full article. Wesley
Excellent suggestion! Text within each section should be worded in such a way as to bring up links to further discussion of controversy round each of the Commandments.
- I am concerned that the idea that the Jehovah's witnesses are "conveniently ignoring the phallic" symbolism of the stake maay be a little POV.  Perhaps it should be edited into a new sentence saying that critics on the other hand, charge that they are avoiding the phallic idea? Mishac 06:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ) "A little POV," kind of like "a little pregnant." It is definatley POV.Sethie 06:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Icons.

message: The Orthodox view of the Ten Commandments is not properly presented. The following is stated:
"Catholic and Orthodox Christian understanding of the Ten Commandments Catholic and Orthodox Christians understand the Ten commandments in the following way: (Deuteronomy, RSV) ..."
Actually, Catholic and Orthodox Christians divide Ex. 20: vv 2-6 and v 17 differently. The differences between the Catholic and Orthodox divisions can be seen by comparing the following sites:
1) Summary of the Commandments from 'Catechism of the Catholic Church':
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm
2) The Ten Commandments from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7115.asp
3) The Ten Commandments from the OCA (Orthodox Church of America):
http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/bible-and-church-history/the-ten-commandments.html
The following page has a nice table that compares the four different traditions of numbering: Philonic (P); Talmudic (T); Augustinian (A); and Lutheran (L).
http://www.bible-researcher.com/decalogue.html
:Information like that implied is lost here on the Talk page. The differences should be analyzed, using quotes freely, and these sites should be in External links, if this has not already been done. Wetman 14:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect view of Orthodox Ten Commandments.

message: some have criticized the version as archaic (e.g. "thou shalt not" instead of "do not") There's that old Some who's responsible for so much "legend has it..." The use of "some" is a disguised passive voice which means to avoid attribution. It is a widespread Wikisin. Do complaints about the language he uses belong in the entry Geoffrey Chaucer?Wetman 14:48, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Some".

message: This page is quite confusing and badly needs a copy-edit.  There is much repeated text and much mixing of differing views.  Consider having one separate section for each religion, and putting all statements sbout religion X in the section of religon X (i.e. avoid phrases like "Xs understand this but Y read that" or "Unlike Xs, Ys understand that...").  Each section should include the corresponding text from the corresponding edition of the Bible. Jorge Stolfi 22:12, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if the elements that are the same could all be gathered together, and keep separate the things that differ between religions. Mkmcconn — 17:51, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganize.

message: Please explain the series of edits you have attempted to place in the article before actually re-writing the article in this way.  You have inserted Yahweh instead of God at various apparently random points.  You have confused the issue of the controversial "third" set of 10 commandments.  The theophany you describe is contoversial at best. etc. Jayjg 19:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Greetings Jayjg, thanks for the message. Fair enough. The variation of God with Yahweh was just an editorial variation, an "elegant variation" (one hopes) as Fowler would say. Most people will know God=Yahweh in this case. It seemed to me that the third set of commandments issue was confused by the paragraph at the bottom claiming for the third set what the Introduction claimed for the Deuteronomy version. The manifestation of God to Moses on Sinai is a classic example of theophany, where the name Yahweh is used for the first time, and the rules of conduct for Yahweh's chosen people are hand-delivered to Moses. That's a pretty big deal, much more well known than Isaiah's theophany reported in the theophany article itself. I did make the assertion conditional, however. I'm not married to my edits, they were a bandage on the new section that I found this morning down at the bottom of the article. It had good info, but it seemed redundant and like it confused the issue a bit for me. I will propose a rewrite here in a few days then, and I look forward to your comments. Fire Star 19:32, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempted edits by Fire Star 

message: One or more of the sign/s:  placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning were removed by User:Yoshiah ap, and I happen to agree with him here. Hopefully, pending further discussion. (The category :Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The {} sign/s

message: I was reading one of my Jewish Theology Books (The Book of Jewish Values) and at one point the author- one Rabbi Joseph Telushkin- states, without naming his source, that a scholar of ancient hebrew had told him the third commandment was imperfectly translated; that idiomatically, the word 'take' is closer to 'carry', and that the commandment should be interpreted not as meaning that God's name was sacred but that one must never act falsely in the name of god.  As evidence, Telushkin pointed out that why else would it be that God says things like "God will not allow the one who takes His name in vain to go unpunished."  God doesn't seem to think that the commandment against murder needs that extra emphasis.  I can't remember where from, but Telushkin also quotes a bible passage that says that this is the one sin which will not be forgiven.  Telushkin argued that falsely carrying the name of God would be the only sin which makes God the victim, by damaging his reputation.
Needless to say this makes so much sense that I cannot easily dismiss it.  Have any of you heard anything remotely like this before?
- Robin Moshe
:Well, it doesn't sound outrageous. Jayjg  | (Talk)</sup> 17:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pirkei Avot states that profaning G'ds name (by publicly acting against His will) is unforgiveable. Perhaps he was alluding to that. This is, however, not the usually translation of the third commandment. JFW | T@lk 12:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Have seen this in the Buber/Rosenzweig translation. Pilatus 12:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please tell me you've heard this before: 

message: The samaritan script, while derived from Paleo-Hebrew, is quite distinct from the "original hebrew alphabet". Also doesn't saying that the Samaritan pentateuch "harmonizes many of (the Judaic Pentateuch)'s contradictions" break NPOV?
--216.80.8.142
:This is a section on the Samaritan interpretation of the TCs, so yes, it's Samaritan POV. Perhaps that could be said more explicitly. kwami 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Samaritan section problems

message: "I'm urging you and your friends to consider something".
:That implies that the people supporting me are doing so because they are "friends". I do not go around childishly trying to gang up as many people that I know will support my opinion before I enter a dispute. The people who appear to support me are doing so because they are ordinary unconnected editors who consider my stance to be the appropriate one, not because I go around with a gang to enforce my POV.
"Nor am I insulting you as a person by referring to your manipulation of section titles as childish". 
:Yes you are. There is no excuse for characterising anyones behaviour as anything derogatory. Read WP:NPOV.
"if I had 4 sources at my disposal I could juggle anything to fit my preferred theory". 
:True. I could easily accuse you of doing just that. The point is to consider where the sources agree, what the consensus is amongst academics. Check it out. My stance is the one that agrees with them on this.
"The word "Convenant" can be applied with equal ease to all mitzvot given between Ex 21 and Ex 34."
:True, and it is. See Covenant Code (a.k.a. Book of the covenant). 
"The fact that there are ten commandments sandwitched between the writing of the [second] tablets and this pronouncement makes for interesting ideas"
"I gather the "original" J, E and P sources are not extant?"
:I gather the "original" torah is not extant. C.f. the septuagint, which is earlier than the masoretic text, the samaritan pentateuch, and the syriac peshitta, none of which completely agree.
"Jan van Eyck it is immediately obvious that he was a Flemish painter."
:He could be generically dutch. He could be from Luxembourg. He could be an American. The name is not enough.
"for those people who recognise the term Ten Commandments, the vast majority will say that they contain instructions like "don't kill" and "don't steal". "
:Yes, but they'd still be wrong. Even the instruction you are referring to actually says "don't murder", which many Jews consider to be offensive if you translate it as "don't kill", and many Jews consider the other commandment to be "don't steal people" (i.e. don't kidnap). So, as you can see, the majority still get it wrong. We must be precise. 
:Let me rephrase Kwami's evolutionary point. If the majority of wikipedians, and western popular culture, believed that biological evolution preceded by mean of Intelligent Design rather than through natural selection, but the majority of scientists believed that natural selection was the answer, should the body of the article on evolution be entirely about ID, with only a disambig to natural selection in the introduction? 
"There is no "imprecision" about the name "Ten Commandements". Everyone knows precisely what the term means,"
:Yes, it means things which are
:*commandments
:*there are 10 of
:Neither the ethical decalogue, nor the ritual decalogue, are clearly 10, and the ritual decalogue are certainly closer to there being 10 rather than 14 or 15.
"including the tiny number of academics who insist that there is also an "ethical decalogue"."
:The "tiny number" is 90% of academics studying the bible for reasons other than religious interpretation. This "tiny number" includes the "insignificant" vatican.
:--User talk:FDuffy 13:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Another new section

message: In the section Written in Stone, we have:
:Traditional belief is that the commandments were inscribed on two stone tablets, with three commandments on one tablet and seven on the other tablet.
What traditional belif is that? I can't find a source for this, and will remove it until someone can, discussing other options in its place. jnothman talk 23:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume its from the same tradition that believes all the God commandments were on one tablet, and all the people commandments were on the other. Different traditions number these differently, the protestants are, if I remember correctly, the ones who split the commandments so that there are 3 god commandments, and 7 people commandments, wheras Jews, again if I remember correctly, split it 5 god commandments, and 5 people commandments. --User talk:FDuffy 13:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, so then Traditional belief may be best replaced by Protestant belief but I would like a source before it goes back in there. jnothman talk 23:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Traditional sources" 

message: The origins section seems to be typical late 19th century / early 20th century modernist claptrap. I think it should be replaced by a NPOV section on comparison between the 10 commandments and other ancient moral codes and maxims. There are legitimate statements that can be made regarding similarities with Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Ugaritic texts as well as regarding significant differences (only one God, no graven images) without simplistic nonsense that its all borrowed from Egyptian religion. Even Judaism recognizes that commandments in common with other cultures belong to the category of mishpatim i.e. common sense laws that one typically finds in any civilization. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure that somewhere on Wikipedia, there is such a discussion with reference to not just the Ten Commandments, but rather the entire canon of biblical law. Finding it, on the other hand, is another matter (Mosaic law should be relvant, but isn't really). I'm not sure that a discussion here of the Ten Commandments law in isolation and that in other cultures is relevant without discussing the rest of the Torah law. I began a discussion of the form of the tablets with that used in treaty ritual in other Near Eastern cultures in the Written in stone section, and the form here, rather than the content, is very specific to the Ten Commandments and the discussion can't easily be generalised to the rest of the canon. jnothman talk 00:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins

message: Notwithstanding the various confusion between Jews - Christians - Muslims etc about the articulation of the Commandments (statements).
There is very little in the article about the founding basis of the Commandments.
The Abrahamic religions founding father Abraham was borne in Ur, during the time of Semetic rulers (Babylonian rulers). In turn the early Semetic peoples used Sumerian writing and myths (See Genesis vs Gilgamesh). From the translation of many Sumerian texts, we find the origin of much of Abrahamic religions.
The commandments have their origin in older legal systems and are simply a reproduction of pre Abrahamic codes for the legal stabilisation (coalescence) of society.
It would be very worthwhile for a learned person to expand on this topic, because if "God" wrote the laws down, "He" was only copying them from Sumerian and Babylonian laws and in some part plagerising the Sumerian Pantheon. However, it is very interesting how the article informs that, even the followers of Abraham (or Abrahamic Religions) cant agree among themselves on what their "God" commanded them to do. No disrespect intended to the followers of those religions, but a profoundly obvious fact.
Very enlightning article, many thanks for taking the trouble to write it!
*Good Comment -What are the origins of Sumerian, Babylonian, and every other belief? If the Torah is of the One, then there is a simple explanation. From whose loins did all mankind descend? Adam was the original, and there is evidence that the Noahidic Laws were revealed to him, before we named them after Noah. After the Noahidic flood, mankind began once again, and the evidence is that the Law of God was restated, and renewed. Therefore, is there any question as to where the Sumerians, Babylonians, or the ancient Chinese understandings were derived? Everyone and every understanding descended from Adam, and then once again from Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japeth. Some understandings and/or names were confused or obfuscated over time, and yet all will be reconciled. --Kevin 01:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic origins? 

message: On 13 December 2005, I translated Exodus 34:28 as "...and He wrote the words of the covenant upon the tablets - the ten statements." Later that day, Kwamikagami changed it to "... and he wrote...", with the comment that "'he' not normally capitalized when it refers to Moses".
We agree that 'he' is capitalized only when it refers to God. Our dispute is who the verse refers to.
I will begin by conceding that since this verse is spoken by the Narrator of the story, rather than being a quote from any of the story's characters, it can be taken as somewhat ambiguous (especially as compared to Deut. 10:4, which I'll cite below). I further concede that the first two "he"s of this verse certainly refer to Moses, and that many popular translations (including KJV, RSV, and JPS) also translate this third one as "he", uncapitalized.
Now I'd like to present the other view, that the first two "he"s of this verse refer to Moses, but that the third refers to God.
Namely, it is clear from Exodus 34:1 (God said to Moses, "Carve for yourself two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on the tablets the words that were on the first tablets which you shattered.") and from Deut. 10:3-4 (I ascended the mountain... and He wrote on the tablets..., where it is clearly Moses who is speaking) that it was God, not Moses, who wrote the words onto the second tablets.
This view is explained by many classical commentaries on Exodus 34:28, including Nahmanides, ibn Ezra, and Rashbam. Furthermore, although the Jewish Publication Society of America Version translation does use the lower-case "he", the commentary of the Soncino Press edition edited by Rabbi Abraham Cohen ([]) corrects this to "He", and the ArtScroll edition has "He" in the translation text itself.
My personal feeling, based on all the above, is that if "the covenant" and "the ten statements" of this verse refer to the famous Ten Commandments of Exodus 20:2-14, then it must refer to God, and be translated as "He"; if one insists on translating it as "he", then it cannot refer to Ex. 20, but must refer to Moses writing the covenant of Exodus 34:10-26.
--Keeves 13:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The second set of commandments was dictated to Moses by G'd but written by Moses. Midrash. JFW | T@lk 14:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: PS please do not refer to the talkpage from the article. This falls under Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. JFW | T@lk 14:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted again.  Keeves -- we shouldn't be linking to the talk page in any way, even if it's buried within the link. Additionally, the entire article is inconsistant in its capitalization of pronounce refering to deities.  As it's an article dedicated to Judeo-Christian religion, I do not object at all to capitalizing pronouns refering to God, but please keep this in mind: such capitalization varys from person to person and is not a strict or consistant gramatical rule.  ~CS 15:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Hebrew is clear here in using the active form of the verb "vayiktov". This is certainly not "and written on the tablets were...", it clearly states that some "he", "He" or masculine "it" wrote upon the tablets. I have thus reverted the translation. jnothman talk 14:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "vayiktov" is a verb, but the text does not refer to the person/diety/whatever DOING the writing.  By translating "And written..." I meant 'written' as an action that was occuring, but in a passive voice, not that it was already written there.  The problem is that there is no way to distinguish between the two in english, even if you wrote "and it was written on the tablet..." that would still not convey the action of writing.  Soch 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of Exodus 34:28 

message: Glad to see rationalrevolution linked! :) That particular article is really good. - FrancisTyers 17:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links