In the course of discussing the Sabbath with some folks,  I came across something that was completely new to me,  and I thought I'd offer it for comment.  To keep this as brief as possible, let me state my  observation as a declarative statement, and then whoever  wants to can comment on it.  Basically, what I think  I've observed is that the phrase "the Ten Commandments",  as used by Moses, is not a reference to Ex. 20:1-17, but  rather a reference to ten distinct discourses from Ex.  20:1 through Ex. 31:18.  That is, the phrase "the Ten  Commandments" should more accurately be translated "the  Ten Discourses", of which the passage we call the "Ten  Commandments" is really only the first.  I'm not completely convinced that the above is true, but  for purposes of discussion, let me argue it as though I  was sure.  Arguments supporting the above idea:  1)  There aren't really ten commandments in Ex. 20:1-17.   In order to get 10 commandments, you have to get two of  them out of verses 3-6, and the verses themselves do not  support such a division because they are all about not  worshipping other gods.  That is, verse 3 commands to  have no other gods, and verse 5 commands to not worship  the idols mentioned in verse 4.  You can't violate  verses 5-6 without violating verse 3, indicating that  the whole passage is one command, and leaving us with  only Nine "Commandments".  I could go on at length about  this, but for now I'll just stop with this summary.  2)  There ARE ten speeches between Ex 20:1 (the beginning of the traditional "Ten Commandments") and Ex 31:18  (where God actually gives Moses the two tablets with the  Ten Commandments/Discourses written on them).  I break  these ten down as follows: 20:1-17; 20:22-26; 21:1-23:33;  25:1-30:10; 30:11-16; 30:17-21; 30:22-33; 30:34-38;  31:1-11; and 31:12-18.  In most cases, each of these  passages begins with some variation of the phrase, "And  the LORD spoke to Moses, saying..."  The exception is  Ex. 21:1, which begins "Now these are the ordinances  which you are to set before them..."  3)  The word translated "commandments" in the phrase  "the Ten Commandments" isn't really the word for  "commandment", its the word for a speech, or an  utterance.  It's a word often used for longer discourses  rather than individual statements; for instance, when  combined with the word 'yom' (day), this word is  translated "Chronicles" in such phrases as "now the rest  of the acts of so-and-so, are they not written in the  Chronicles of x?..."  The word for "commandment" is  freely used throughout the books of Moses, and perhaps  it is significant that when Moses spoke of the Ten X's,  he appears to have avoided the word for commandment and  chosen instead a word associated with discourses longer  than just a single command.  4)  God tells Moses that He is going to give him the  stone tablets "with the law and the commandments" (Ex  24:12), yet He does not give Moses the tablets until He  has finished all ten discourses on Mount Sinai.  If the  Ten Commandments were only Ex. 20:1-17, it is not  immediately clear why God would wait several days and  nine more discourses before giving these tablets to  Moses.  On the other hand, if we have the Ten Discourses  written on the tablets, then it makes perfect sense that  God would not give Moses the tablets until He had  finished delivering all Ten Discourses.  5)  When Moses did get the tablets, he found that both  tablets were written on both sides (Ex. 32:15).  If  these Ten "Commandments" were only the first 17 verses  of Ex. 20, God would have had to have written in LARGE  letters!  Not that He couldn't have, of course, but it  does seem more likely to me that this is a reference to  two tablets containing ten discourses written in normal- sized letters.  6)  In II Cor. 3, Paul seems to specifically single out  the "commandments written on stone" as being the  "ministry of death", "that which is fading away," and  "the ministry of condemnation."  With the possible  exception of the commandment about the Sabbath, it is  difficult to see why Paul would refer to the commands in  Ex. 20:1-17 as being temporary, "fading away"-type  commandments.  This is less of a problem if the stone  tablets should happen to have included all of the  commandments from Ex 20 through Ex 31.  Arguments against this idea:  The main argument against this idea, aside from the fact  that it contradicts a long-standing tradition, is that  in Dt 5:22, Moses says, after quoting the commands in  Ex. 20:1-17, "These words the LORD spoke...and He added  no more.  And He wrote them on two tablets of stone and  gave them to me."  This appears to identify the words  just quoted as being the only contents of the two stone  tablets.  That was my first impression, anyway.  However, after  some thought, I noted that a great deal hinges on how  you understand the phrase "These words."  If Moses meant  "These words *which I have just related to you* were  spoken by God" etc., then that would mean that only the  traditional "Ten Commandments" were on the stone  tablets.  If, however, Moses was making a parenthetical  comment--"These words *which I AM NOW telling you* were  spoken by God" etc.--then that's quite different.  I did note that in the Dt 5 account, Moses tells of  being given the stone tablets BEFORE telling of the  people asking Moses to represent them before God,  whereas in the Exodus account, the people asked this of  Moses between the first and second discourses, several  days BEFORE God gave Moses the stone tablets.  This  reinforces the idea that Moses' remarks in Dt 5:22ff  were intended as a parenthetical remark, rather than a  strictly chronological account of when God wrote what,  and at what point He stopped adding to what was on the  tablets.  Summary:  all things considered, I find it somewhat more  likely that the nine commands in Ex 20 are really only  the first of what Moses regarded as the Ten Discourses  of God.  I don't know if anybody has ever espoused this  idea before; it's brand-new to me.  So, while I lean  towards accepting it, I would be very interested in  hearing any comments and criticisms anyone may care to  offer.