Talk:Ritual Decalogue/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Weasel wording

I have fixed the first sentence to avoid weasel wording - see here. I do not want to wade into the thick of this dispute, but please do not dismiss my outside view here lightly. This entry is about a topic, not about a term. This topic is not one that most people know about. The term used to describe it is, therefore, used almost exclusively by the scholars who write about it. But unless other sources identify that limitation as meaningful in some way we should not comment on it as if it were. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I see I was reverted without so much as a comment here. The current lead is even more contextually restrictive than it was when I made my edit. What is going on here? From a google books or scholar search it is easy to see that "Ritual Decalogue" is a term used throughout the relevant academic fields, and not just among "high critics". I found hundreds of sources using it in this way. So what is going on here? Please use the talk page. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no weasel words, but if you could explain them, before preemptorally deleting edits that were made for good reasons which were spelled out carefully on this page, please bring them up here for discussion.

No one questions that people use the term "Ritual Decalogue. But it is a simple fact that many people do not use the term "Ritual Dialogue." Therefore, what is called a Ritual Decalogu must be presented as a view not as a fact.

Neither Jayjg nor I ever deleted the content stating that many scholars identify certain verses in Exodus 34 as a ritual decalogue. We mrely identified this as one view, not universally shared. I even added sources - which you deleted!

That the passage in question has been identified by several scholars as a "ten commandments" is beyond question, and niether I nor Jayjg nor anyone else has ever challenged this. And the version we worked on, which you reverted, included this view!. But this remains a view. One reason we know this is a view is because several other scholars do not view them as a "ten commandments." The term RD is not at all the term used exclusively by scholars to refer to this passage of Ex. 34. It is a' term used by scholars, but not the only term. Griswaldo, all you did was to revert an NPOV compliant version of the article to a POV-pushing version. Please respect our NPOV policy. WP is not about truth - not my truth or your truth. It is about providing all significant views from reliable sources.

You say there has been no discussion yet Jayjg and I have been making these simple points for many days now. We worked hard to craft an NPOV version, which you just reverted, without explanation. And if you think that finding google hits for RD proves you are right and we are wrong, then you simply do not understand what the conflict is about. At no time did any version of this article deny the use of the term RD. Jayjg and I acknowledge that some scholars use this term - yet you and kwame refuse to recognize that other scholars do not. Who is the POV pusher here? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I even added sources - which you deleted!

• What are you talking about? My first two edits were right after this edit of yours. Did I delete any sources? No. My only other edit was here. Again did I delete any sources? No. So I ask you what are you talking about? My only edits have been an attempt, twice now, to remove "a term used by some Bible scholars for...", which I still contend is a weasel phrase.

But it is a simple fact that many people do not use the term "Ritual Dialogue."

• OK who doesn't and more importantly what baring does this non-use have? Do they use another name for these commands? If so what name and what sources?

And the version we worked on, which you reverted, included this view!. and Griswaldo, all you did was to revert an NPOV compliant version of the article to a POV-pushing version.

• I did not revert anything. See the first point above for my only edits on this page. I removed a phrase, I did not "revert" your version to someone else's.

It is a term used by scholars, but not the only term. and Jayjg and I acknowledge that some scholars use this term - yet you and kwame refuse to recognize that other scholars do not.

• OK, again what other terms are used for this list of commands? What other scholars use these different terms to label this topic?

And if you think that finding google hits for RD proves you are right and we are wrong, then you simply do not understand what the conflict is about.

• As I said before I do not wish to wade into this conflict. However, I understand plenty about the change I made to remove weasel words from the opening sentence of the entry.

SLR, Kwame has provided plenty of sources above that use the term "Ritual Decalogue" to describe the topic that this entry covers. If you think that there are other mainstream terms utilized to describe this topic then it is on you to provide the terms and to provide the sources. There is no NPOV issue unless you establish this first. I'm happy to wait but I've yet to see these sources. I'm not interested in any of the deeper disagreements about the different decalogues. I simply wish for this entry to be clear about one thing -- that it is about a subject matter usually called "ritual decalogue" and not about a "term used by X." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo, you did not delete any sources I added and I apologize for the false accusation. But many scholars refer to the list of verses under questions as the samll covenant code, not as the ten commandmnts, so the first sentence still needs work to be NPOV. Others do not call them anything - they are just more of the other 603 commandments God revealed to Moses. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Others do not call them anything ... what does that have to do with it? Are you saying that this a fringe subject? If so please prove it with sources. The fact that every biblical scholar in the world hasn't penned the phrase "Ritual decalogue" in at least one reliable publication does not prove anything. Most of the technical terms in any academic discipline would be out the door if that were the case.Griswaldo (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said it is a fringe view. Of course, what makes something a fringe view depends on who one is including in one's group of viewers. But all I meant was that there are many people who read the Bible and who do not take the view that these verses are a version of the ten commandments worth arguing against. I suppose you might suggest that these people consider it a fringe view. That they may consider it a fringe view should not make it a fringe view by WP's standards, i.e. we should NOT delete the article, and within the article e should NOT delete the view. All I have every argued is that it is a view, it is not a view that is universally shared by people who read the Bible (including people who study it), and therefore we should identify it as a view. This is all I have ever argued for.

Here is a problem with your methodology. Even if "Ritual Decoalogue" got a million hits on Google Scholar, we need to see what those sources actually say. Some sources may mention RD to say that these verses of Ex. 34 constitute a ritual decalogue - I have no doubt that many sources say this. But some sources may mention RD to say that other people have claimed that these verses constitute a ritual decalogue, but that those people are wrong. And some sources may mentions RD to say that some scholars believe these verses constitute a ritual decalogue, and some scholars do not. These are three very different views concerning "RD" but if you are just doing a search, all three views will come up in the same sample. Unless you have a reliable means of disaggregating these three views (and potentially others?) we do not really know how to interpret the data.

You have documented that there are more published references to RD in your sample than "small covenant code." Again, how do we interpret this? Any book or article on the history of Higher Criticism will have the phrase "ritual decalogue" in them.

I think a better method would be to loo for books and articles on Exodus, and see how many of them mention RD. I am sure some, maybe many, will. I am also sure many won't. Ditto with small covenant code. That is what I meant about not calling them anything. It doesn't make RD a fringe view, but it sure makes it clear that it is a view which I repeat is all I have ever claimed in this thread. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then lets look at the sources.Griswaldo (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Small Covenant code

As far as I can tell, from the entry, the only other term supplied for this topic is "small covenant code". That said, the small covenant code is the same topic, even if those who prefer it tend to have different theories about the text in question. Now, in terms of prominence in usage here's a quick breakdown.

• Google books
  • Ritual decalogue - 1,520
  • Small Covenant code - 4
• Google scholar
  • Ritual decalogue - 94
  • Small Covenant code - 2

I don't see how, given this, NPOV requires that the lead be written in the manner SLR is arguing for. The idea that some scholars call it one and some the other is almost nonsensical. Clearly a vast majority refer to the topic as the Ritual decalogue. Mentioning the alternative label in the lead is fine, but we don't need the weasely language about "some scholars" this or that.Griswaldo (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And google is not a good tool for scholarship. Google is biased to on-line material, and Google scholar is biased towards out of date and out of copyright sources. Look instead to articles in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, and to the leading scholars in the field. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have to provide evidence for that. You cannot simply claim that the Google searches are illegitimate. Yes they are not perfect, but unless there is a very special sort of situation those searches are actually top notch to determine general trends. Do you have sources other than the 4 that appear on google books, or the 2 on google scholar that are reliable and discuss the "small covenant code"? I just searched JSTOR and got 37 results for "ritual decalogue" and 0 for "small covenant code". You will have to provide proof of mainstream usage above and beyond your say so. That's how it works.Griswaldo (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would not say that they are illegitimate, but I would say they are not always ideal and have to be taken with a grain of salt. I have provided sources in the introduction to the article, and my only claim is that the views presented by those sources are significant, and that the sources are reliable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding SCC as another name for this, even though it's marginal. What I find odd is deleting more common names. I recently added several names, with references, which Slrubenstein deleted.

My main problem is the repeated denial that the RD/SCC, whatever you may call it, is identified as the Ten Commandments by the Bible. Again, Slrubenstein deleted my sources, but they include such mainstream sources as the Oxford Annotated NRSV of the Bible; they were Jewish and Christian, liberal and conservative. An Evangelical source seemed rather unhappy with this, but stated it as a fact anyway; they did not try weaseling out of it by saying "some scholars" identify it as the TCs, or with Jay's wording that "This is the only place in the Bible where the phrase aseret ha-dvarîm follows closely after a set of commandments". All the sources I gave went further: the phrase aseret ha-dvarîm doesn't just "follow" the RD/SCC, it refers to the RD/SCC. Where the "some scholars" come in is in interpreting this: why is Ex34 identified as the TCs? What was the authorship? Timing? etc. What Slrubenstein et al. have crafted in the lede is a discussion of Goethe's interpretation of Ex34, but it sidesteps the more basic issue of what the sources I provided take as a given: that Ex34 is identified as the TCs by the Bible itself. — kwami (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I did fremove a number of citations that simply repeated the same point. The point - that there is a long tradition (two hundred years) of scholars identifying this passage of Ex 34 as a ritual decalogue - remained, remains, and is made very clearly by the article. What I did add was context which is not sidestepping anything but on the contrary providing readers with more information about the views conveyed. The point that this view holds that Ex34 is identified as the TCs by the Bible itself is the central point of the body of the article, which I left untouched. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

You removed the citations that repeated the same point, and then you deleted the point as well. Since we now have RD and SCC as twin titles, the point is not that a number of scholars ID Ex34 as a ritual decalogue. If the identification of Ex34 "as the TC's by the Bible itself is the central point of the article", as you say, then that point should be summarized in the lede, yet you've repeatedly deleted it from the lede. Also, the IDtion of Ex34 as the TC's is independent of the idea of a RD or a SCC. Sources such as the Evangelical one I provided are not part of RD or SCC scholarship, yet they accept that Ex34 is called the TCs by the Bible. Do you have sources that this is not what the Bible says? — kwami (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"one of three lists"

The "Ritual Decalogue" is a list of commandments, not "one of three lists". First we describe what it is, then we can note that it is often compared to the Ten Commandments. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I provided nine sources that the Bible, not Bible critics, calls Ex34 the "Ten Commandments", which were deleted to belaboring the obvious. Do you have any refs to the contrary, or do you, once again, not require sources to make changes that you like, but only for changes you don't like? — kwami (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please make comments that refer only to article content, not to other editors. Other comments will be ignored. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Then ignore the comment about the quality of your argument, and answer the question about the content. It shouldn't be difficult, and I've asked you often enough before. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have a point to make that is solely about article content, I'll be happy to respond. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as a "no". — kwami (talk) 08:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Take what as a "no"? Is that a statement about some part of the article content? Jayjg ^(talk) 08:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. First you should describe what it is. After that you can note what it has been compared to. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't have a content dispute, you shouldn't be deleting content, especially sourced content. That is considered disruptive, and if you continue, it could be reason for a block. If the writing needs to be improved, you can improve the writing, or say here what needs to be improved and we can do it.

Your objection is so vague that I have no idea what you actually want. It did lede in with what it was, and you changed that to what it has been compared to (just one thing of several), contradicting your supposed justification. So what exactly is the problem with the wording? — kwami (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a vey precise objction. The Bible has Goid revealing 613 coandments to Moses. The two tablets contain the ten commandmens, but God reveals other commandmnts to Moses. That God revers to a passage in 34 is a view, and we represent it in this artricle with sound sources. Why don't you abide by any other view? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's a very precise objection. The "Ritual Dialogue" is a list of commandments found in a specific place in the Bible. Period. That is what the first sentence should say, which is simple, accurate, informative, non-controversial. We shouldn't be trying to make some sort of point by saying it is "one of three" things; it actually falls into many different groupings. The comparisons with other lists can come later. Please keep in mind that any edits you make to the lede that revert back in the inappropriate "one of three lists" formulation will be unhelpful for the reader, bad writing, and unacceptable to the editors here. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet, you reverted it in again. Kwami, this is not acceptable; it's clear that both consensus and common sense indicate the first sentence should simply say what the RD is, a list of commandments in Exodus 34. Please stop inserting bad writing. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet you keep insisting on giving primacy to Goethe, and deleting common terms for the text while inserting a rare term, which is even worse writing. Now that we finally have a source to support your POV, we can put both in the lede. — kwami (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And you reverted the phrase in several more times! Look, it has been explained why this phrase cannot stand, as it is both bad writing, and violates WP:NPOV. You have been reverted on this by five different editors, so it's clear there is no consensus for including it. As for "Exodus-34 Decalogue" being a common term, it seems unlikely, given that it gets only 1 google books hit. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you even bothered to follow the edits?

I have no problem with you adding a rare term. I am puzzled on why you would insist on deleted several terms which are more common. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep inserting the phrase "one of three lists etc." when it has been objected to here as bad writing and a violation of WP:NPOV, and removed by five different editors? And why do you keep adding "Exodus-34 Decalogue", a term that is exceedingly rare? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing the citation format

At least one editor is trying to add citations in a new format, using the citation templates. Citation templates are a complicated, unwieldy, inflexible, hard to use language that often considerably increases article load and edit time. Please do not change the formatting style already used in the article by adding references using these templates, per WP:CITECONSENSUS. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. — kwami (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Covenant Code

Since anything I add gets reverted without substantial reason, no matter my sources, maybe s.o. else can add the Covenant Code in the comparison chart. It's quite obvious (and quite easy to reference) that Ex23 parallels the Ex34 decalogue much like Ex20 parallels the Deut5 decalogue. I'm not sure all four should be in the same table; perhaps Ex34-Dt5 for the two actually called "the Decalogue", with a comparison to the CC further down, and a link to the TCs article for the comparison to Ex20. (It's redundant where it is.) — kwami (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The convenant code is much too long to put into that table.

With regards to getting reverted, you need to discuss more and WP:BOLD a little bit less here. If you are genuinely passionate about this topic you could direct some of your passion into understanding the views of others about it, particularly Slrubenstein who seems to have a good command of the literature on this subject. JFW | T@lk 10:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

JFW, I don't think this is a fair assessment of the situation at all. Please look at the discussion above. SLR actually has 0 sources, or at least has presented 0 sources for the view that the bible does not refer to this Decalogue as "the ten commandments". If he actually has "a good command of the literature on this subject" something very fishy is going on here. Either 1) he refuses to share the sources that make this claim, or 2) no such sources exist and he's making the claim in contradiction of what he actually knows about the sources. My own reading of this is much more charitable. SLR does not have such a command of the sources, and has made a claim that he thought was true, or that he confused for another claim and now wont back down for some strange reason and despite the fact that he has been unable to back his assertion by sources. What he and Jayjg keep on doing is pretending that the disagreement is over something else entirely and never actually dealing with Kwami's direct claim. They've been doing this over and over despite being called out on it many times now, not just by Kwami but by me as well. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't "pretended" anything, and I have provided sources. Have you read them? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

O.K., I've added another two sources. The point here is that the traditional and common understanding of the Pentateuch is that Exodus 34:28 refers to the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20:2-17, not to the "Ritual Decalogue" of Exodus 34:11-26. The view that the Bible (via Exodus 34:28) "identifies" Exodus 34:11-26 as the "Ten Commandments" is an opinion about the Biblical text, no less so than the traditional view that the Bible (via Exodus 34:28) identifies Exodus 20:2-17 as the Ten Commandments. If there is some "pretending" going on here, it's the pretense that one specific opinion about what the Bible says is simple fact. That's the kind of claim that's best left to religious zealots and true believers, not Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for providing enough for me to track this down. It has been like pulling teeth to get a straight answer to Kwami's question, and even now you just refer to a source you recently provided in the entry - Struggling with God: An Introduction to the Pentateuch, by Mark McEntire. Would it have been so horrible to have quoted here from that source, which does indeed claim that traditionally the phrase is taken to refer to Exodus 20? You and SLR both answer Kwami's requests in one of the most evasive manners I've yet to see here on Wikipedia, and I see no good reason for it. I'm not entirely sure what McEntire means by "traditionally" ... does he mean biblical scholars or relgionists for instance, but regardless this is a clear example of what I was asking for. I do not see another such example, however, which is not to say that there aren't any, but simply to justify the repeated questions for one before today, when you provided this one. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I have found another source that makes the claim that Jayjg has made above - Dating the Old Testament By Craig Davis. By this I mean that claim that while the biblical text in 34:28 does refer to the "Ten Commandments" when it does so it is not referring to the commandments that are given just prior ("Ritual Decalogue") but to the commandments of Exodus 20. I've seen a few sources now that, in combination, suggest that scholars are rather unsure about the answer to this question, and are indeed divided in what explanation they favor. As Kwami has claimed all along, no one denies that the phrase exists in Exodus 34:28, but also as Jayjg points out there are differing interpretations about what it refers to. I apologize for not seeing this clearly before, and for stating that Jayjg and SLR were pretending that the issue was a different one, but I think it seemed that way to me because there has been a whole lot of talking past one another here and little direct quoting of sources. Is there a compromise that can be found here? What if the lead states the issue more succinctly? That they are often called the Ritual Decalogue because some scholars believe that 34:28 refers to these commandments while other scholars disagree, etc.?Griswaldo (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see how McIntire supports the view that Ex34:28 refers to Ex20, but not how Davis does. McIntire wries,

Exodus 34:28 says, "And [Moses] wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, ten of the words" ... Again, the text is not precise about what it written. The final phrase, "ten of the words," is awkward. Traditionally, it is taken as a reference back to the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20. (p 9)

The first reference to "ten words" written on a tablet by Moses appears in Exodus 34:28, but again it is not obvious that this is a reference to 20:1-17. (p 107)

Davis, on the other hand, appears to be saying that Ex34:28 does *not* refer to Ex20, because it refers to words that Moses wrote, whereas Ex20 was written by God. (p 63) — kwami (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I accept your apology. It was rather unfair of you to say I provided zero sources when I provided three (and in fact I have done a considerable amount of research, which lead to adding real, sourced content to this article and to the Ten Commandments article), although I can and do understand why you thought we were talking past one another. I am all for making the wording of the introduction clearer, as long as - and this has been my position all along - views are presented as views. You actually made an edit concerning the small covenant code claim which I did not protest because I considered it quite constructive, because you were making clear that it is a view. If you are now assuming good faith on mhy part, and if kwame can do the same and stop accusing me of being a hypocrite, I am sure we can find a way to work together productively. 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Slrubenstein | Talk

I'll stop calling you a hypocrite when you start holding yourself to the standard you expect of others.

It looks like we now have two sources one source supporting your position. That's all I ever asked for. I'll integrate them into the text when I get a chance. — kwami (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That should take care of objections that it's only one POV, without the errors and biases that have also been introduced, such as removing common names for the passage and substituting only the rare SCC. — kwami (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein reverted, saying that any changes should be discussed here first. I agree, and so have reverted to before the edit war. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

He's reverted again, reintroducing claims he must know are wrong or at best misleading. Per his suggestion, I've deleted all of the lede apart from the uncontested part. — kwami (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say there does appear to be a double standard here. SLR, you appear to be telling Kwami to abide by WP:BRD, but not doing so yourself. Whatever version is preferable, it appears to be a fact that there was a stable version for some time that you and Jayjg came and started changing. You cannot utilize BRD as a rationale to revert Kwami if you cannot abide by it yourself. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no double standard: I expect kwami to present the views he introduces as views; I present the views I introduce as views. I expect kwami to respect NPOV and not imply that either view is correct; I try not to imply that either view is correct. I have introduced relevant material supported by sources. kwame deletes it. But I have never deleted the view kawme derives from sources, nor have I deleted his sources.

kwame seems intent on misrepresenting scholarship, and continues to identify to a text as a decalogue, when whether or not it is a decalogue is controversial i.e. there is no scholarly consensus. I do not see a double standard, I see a fundamentalist POV pusher. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

So you're a liar as well as a hypocrite. You have deleted views derived from sources, and the sources themselves. Many times. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen, lets lower our voices a bit. SLR makes a simple claim, that he NEVER deleted some else sources. This claim could easily be checked.. Kwami, can you point to a time that SLR DID delete some else’s sources? If not, you owe him a big apology. But, otherwise....if the shoe fits.. Steve kap (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How about here, deleting my sources just two hours before claiming he doesn't do that? — kwami (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that seems pretty clear to me. What about it SLR, you say you've never deleted sources, and yet, seem the history of the page show that you did. Was that a mis-statement on your part? Did you mean to say that you DID delete sources? Is there some misunderstanding as to what words mean here? Steve kap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC).

That version was also amended to take SLR's objections into account, and presented the idea that the RD is called the TCs as one POV, using his recent source for the traditional view, just as he had demanded. Yet he did not bother to say what if anything was still wrong with it apart from the repeated and vague refrain of "POV", along with the suggestion of "discuss[ing] changes one at a time on the talk pages"—which he immediately violated, of course. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean sources like Alexander and Baker, Aaron, Whybray, etc.? They are all still in the article. Like most POV-pushers, you just focus on adding your views to the introduction. An introduction should simply introduce the article. It provides the principle views with citations. That is all a good introduction needs. Those views should be explained in greater detail in the body of the article. Also, all we need are the most scholarly sources to show that a view exists. This is not pissing contest to see who can accumulate more citations. What is the point of adding more and more sources that say the same thing, which is already in the article? It is a terrible way to write an encyclopedia and simply an expression of kwames's monomania. Let's focus on making the whole article a good one, rather than pushin a POV in the lead. Which, as I have explained repeatedly, is all kwame has been doing. What view have I ever deleted?Slrubenstein | Talk 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You've repeatedly deleted the view that the obvious reading even exists. What you've replaced it with does not mean the same thing—if it did, we wouldn't be arguing about it. You are purging the article of a point you don't like, even though it's well sourced. Why is this passage called a "decalogue"? Because it's contended that the phrase "ten commandments" refers to this passage. Not that some scholars interpret it as the TCs, but that many read the phrase TCs as applying to this passage, even when they disagree that it actually is the TCs. Yet you want to delete that simple statement. The whole reason this passage is contentious is because the obvious reading of the text is that it's the TCs, yet it's not the TCs that we are familiar with. Several of the sources I provided struggle with this: it's not the TCs, yet it's called the TCs; what are we to make of that? If it weren't for the phrase "TCs", we wouldn't even have an article, so that is of primary importance, and therefore belongs in the lede. Your argument for deleting it amounts to little more than "I don't like it". — kwami (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"the obvious reading" you mean, obvious to you. That is original research. It is a view, you keep trying to get away from complying with NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you're obviously intelligent enough to know that characterization is supported by the numerous sources you keep deleting, and I've never proposed that wording for the article, you're merely being petty and disruptive. If you have an argument apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT, please, let's hear it. — kwami (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, it would seem the deleting sources provided by another editor isn't the right way to go. Doesn't seem to fit in with the ideal of ideas being exchanged and discussed. Is there any way we can convince you to stop doing that? Steve kap (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC) 16:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As the small convent code would appear to be a seldom used term, I don't see why it should figure so promentely in the lede pharagraph. Shouldn't such a finge concept be a little less up front? Steve kap (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It should definitely be deleted if we're going to delete such basic info as why the RD is notable in the first place. But I have no problem with keeping it as one view among several. — kwami (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"identified as the Ten Commandments"

The "Ritual Decalogue" is not "identified as the Ten Commandments". Rather, it is described as the "Ritual Decalogue", and compared to the Ten Commandments. We've had a lengthy discussion at Talk:Ten Commandments/Archive 7#RD again in which there was a strong consensus that Wikipedia articles should not obfuscate this point, or pretend the opposite. While scholars posit two "decalogues", only the "Ethical Decalogue" is what is commonly known as the Ten Commandments. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, only the ED is commonly called the TCs. But the RD is called the TCs in the biblical text. Yes, we have gone over this many times. I provided nine sources to support the obvious, and the wording that was stable before the two of you started your edit war here, and you reverted it without any sourcing. Do you have such sourcing, or is this still a case of "I don't like it"? — kwami (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Please make comments that refer only to article content, not to other editors. Other comments will be ignored. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Then answer the question about content. If you are not willing to, I will assume you have no answer, and edit accordingly. — kwami (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If you make a comment that is solely about article content, I'll be happy to respond. If you are not willing to, then I'll assume your comments are unrelated to article content, and act accordingly. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you're being purposefully obstructive. I'll take that as a "no". — kwami (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to respond to any comments solely about article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine: "I provided nine sources that the Bible, not Bible critics, calls Ex34 the "Ten Commandments", which were deleted to belaboring the obvious. Do you have any refs to the contrary?" and "Yes, only the ED is commonly called the TCs. But the RD is called the TCs in the biblical text. Yes, we have gone over this many times. I provided nine sources to support the obvious, and you reverted it without any sourcing. Do you have such sourcing?" — kwami (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No. You provided 9 sources that there are people who so identify it that way. The text doesn't say that. This is something you seem unable to understand. The text doesn't say that. That's an interpretation of the text. A late interpretation of the text, and one which is hardly unchallenged. You don't get to state something as a fact when there are sources supporting and opposing it. Until you understand that your way of reading that text isn't the only way, the edit war will continue. And that's a shame. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 12:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As Lisa points out, there are certainly sources that indicate the RD is a "Ten Commandments", but others that don't; I've added one. Brevard Childs is quite adamant that it isn't an actual decalogue. See his Book of Exodus (2004), p. 605, where he writes "it became increasingly difficult to defend the view of an actual decalogue in ch. 34.... Attempts to produce ten commandments remained highly subjective and unconvincing..." Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to Childs after p 605, so I can't tell what his conclusions are. But there are many sources, including some I gave, which deny that Ex34 are the TCs at the same time as admitting that Ex34:28 calls them the TCs. Note that I never edited the article to say that they are the TCs, only that they're called that. If you can provide sources that Ex34:28 is out of place and does not refer to Ex34, fine, but so far all I have are numerous sources stating the obvious. Lisa made a counter-argument once upon a time, but I don't recall specific refs supporting it. (Perhaps just my poor memory.) — kwami (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean you don't have access to Childs after page 605? Your copy of the book doesn't have page 605 on? Or your library won't let you read past page 605? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my copy doesn't have pages after 605. I don't have a physical copy, and the copy at GoogleBooks does not have p 606 on. I do have p. 605, but it does not support your claim. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it does; why do you claim it doesn't? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say that Ex34:28 refers to some passage other than Ex34. If it does, please quote the first couple words, because I can't see it. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No-one claimed it did; rather, it's a source that indicates the RD is not a "Ten Commandments". Please review the preceding discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Jay, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not a valid means of discussion. As I have said over and over and over, and as Griswaldo has echoed but you have repeatedly refused to understand, it's not a matter of whether the RD is a decalogue, but whether the Bible calls it a decalogue. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that simple point? We have multiple sources that Ex34:28 refers to Ex34. This includes sources which do not accept Ex34 as a decalogue, such as the evangelical one which only accepts the traditional TCs. So far, you have provided one source that states that Ex34:28 is traditionally said to refer to Ex20. That's what we need: If you want to present what my sources say as only one POV, we need sources that contradict it, not sources which are merely tangential to it. So we now have a source which says the phrase TCs is traditionally understood as referring to Ex20, but others which state that it refers to Ex34. Since the reason Ex34 is notable is that there is argument over this point, that is an important element which belongs in the lede. — kwami (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not a valid means of discussion, so please review this carefully. There are two issues here; is Exod. 34:11-26 a "Ten Commandments", and does Exod. 34:28 (or "the Bible") call it a "Ten Commandments"? In both cases, the answer is "opinions differ". And therefore, in both cases, Wikipedia's narrative voice cannot take sides in the discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

And, as usual, you are presenting things I agree with and telling me I should agree with them. Let me try: Jay, this article is not about Santa Claus, so you should stop claiming it's about Santa Claus. Why don't you address the actual dispute for once? — kwami (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the article cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that Exodus 34:11-26 is "one of three lists identified as the Ten Commandments in the Bible", when sources disagree on whether this is the case. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Question - As a newcomer to this can I ask a silly question? Is the particular topic of this thread the most contentious part of the disagreement? Whether or not the Ritual Decalogue is identified as the (or even a) "ten commandments" in the biblical text itself? Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I certainly think this is an important issue. NOR warns us against using primary sources to forward an argument as if it were fact. Fundamentalists think that the Bible was written by God and means just what it says. But most historians see it as a composit of many texts written by different authors, often based on older oral traditions, and drawing on diverse sources from different ancient Near Eastern cultures, at different times. And a long time ago. That is why there are so many books commenting on the Bible - it is open to multiple interpretations. kwami keeps piling on sources that express a particular view (that Ex. 34 is the ten commandments). The more sources he produces, the more evidence we have that the Bible has been the object of a LOT of interpretations. And then he comes up with this bizarre sentence: "I provided nine sources that the Bible, not Bible critics, calls Ex34 the "Ten Commandments." Well ... what does he think his nine sources are, if not documents written by Bible critics? Yes, we get it that these sources hold the view that the Bible says that these commandments (in Ex. 34) are what God wrote on the tablets. The fact remains, this is itself a view.

NPOV demands that we include all significant views from reliable sources. I want this article to comply with this policy. kwame does not. That is because, like every other Fundamentalist, he doesn't distinguish between his interpretation of the Bible, or the interpretations of the Bible that he likes, and "what the Bible really says." But our policy of NPOV does not ask us to determine "what the Bible really says." It says that we include all significant views from reliable sources. I have never objected to including this view in the article. Kwame's basic objection is that I keep calling it a view. But in Wikipedia, that is what we put in articles. And I have produced sources providing a different view - that these verses are a "small covenant code" which is different from the ten commandments. Now, I am not claiming that this view is "the truth." It is just a view. But it is a significant view, from reliable sources, and that meets the threshold for including in the article. But if the small covenant code interpretation is a "view," then the other interpretation (that it is the ten commandments) is also a view.

Griswaldo, you ask if the issue is: "Whether or not the Ritual Decalogue is identified as the (or even a) "ten commandments" in the biblical text itself?" My answer is: close. The issue is whether "Whether or not the Ritual Decalogue is identified as the (or even a) "ten commandments" in the biblical text itself" is a view, or the truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you are so far off-base on what my views are demonstrates that you have little comprehension of what I've been saying. Perhaps you think I'm a nutcase that doesn't warrant close reading. The fact that you also misrepresent what those sources say suggests you haven't read them.

I don't know whether Ex34 is "the" TCs. I agree that is a matter of interpretation, and I'm not terribly concerned with it. My point is that Ex34:28 is quite clear in calling them the TCs. That may be because some late redactor messed with the text or for any number of other reasons. Again, I'm not terribly concerned with which of those views is correct, as we probably can never know for sure. But while I've been adding alternate views, you and Jay have been deleting them. Deleting alternate views is more in line with pushing one Truth than adding them is.

The sources I gave say that Ex34:28 refers to the laws in Ex34. Some of them have trouble with it, wondering why it should call them rather than the true TCs the "TCs". That is, even among sources which do not accept Ex34 as the TCs, they admit that the phrase TCs is used for Ex34: Denying that Ex34 is the TCs is not mutually exclusive with accepting that the Bible calls them the TCs. If I remember correctly, the Evangelical source called that passage "problematic". Indeed, none of the sources I gave, apart from the atheist, actually say that Ex34 is "the" TCs, they only say that it's called the TCs. Aaron thinks the RD is the product of a religious counter-reformation to the rather secular ED. Whatever. The point is that these sources do not represent *a* view, but many views, and that they agree on one point: Ex34:28 refers to Ex34, which is what any normal reader would conclude as obvious.

This is a bit like saying that Genesis doesn't say that God created the world in six days, but that 'some scholars view it' as saying that. No, it says that. The views are on where the story came from, how many threads it contains, what a "day" is for God or what it means before there was a sun, etc., but the wording itself is straightforward. So is the wording here, and I've backed it up with numerous refs which do not say what you mischaracterize them to say. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it's just one view that the sentence at the end of Exodus 34 refers to the immediately preceding sentences. See the quote from Childs above for one scholar who disagrees. Other scholars believe part or all of the RD is a later insertion. One cannot accept the Documentary Hypothesis on the one hand, but insist the text is a linear work on the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such quote from Childs above. One also does not appear on p 605. I would appreciate it if you would provide it.

Yes, the RD may be a later insertion, but as the text currently stands, Ex34:28 refers to Ex34. Sure, it may have once referred to something else before the text was redacted. One scholar I quoted in this debate believes that Ex34:28 is itself a late insertion, that Exodus originally did not mention "Ten Commandments" at all, but only the Covenant. Fine. There are all sorts of views as to why the phrase "TCs" should appear in Ex34 when it doesn't seem to belong there, given what are universally accepted as the TCs. But whatever those views are, all the sources I have either don't mention the subject at all, or admit that the phrase "TCs" is used for Ex34. Even though they do not accept Ex34 as the TCs. — kwami (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"I agree that is a matter of interpretation, and I'm not terribly concerned with it. My point is that Ex34:28 is quite clear in calling them the TCs" kwami's "point" is itself an interpretation. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an interpretation at a level that we don't state overtly in other articles, so it appears there's a bias at work in this case.

For example, in the lede of Ten Commandments, we say, "The Bible describes their form as being spoken by God and subsequently as an inscription God wrote with his finger on two stone tablets, which God gave to Moses." We don't say that "some scholars" interpret the Bible as saying that.

I have supplied numerous sources that the Bible calls Ex34 the TCs, and that scholars debate why, not that scholars interpret the verse as applying to Ex34. I see no contrary sources so far. We base our articles on sources, so let's see them. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

"It's an interpretation at a level that we don't state overtly in other articles" Wrong. Whenever there are multiple views, we present them as views. Not all scholars believe have this interpretation of the text (as I have had to repeat to you ad nauseum), that means there is no consensus, so that means we present both as views.

You think that we should write, "According to some scholars, the Bible describes their form as being spoken by God and subsequently as an inscription God wrote with his finger on two stone tablets, which God gave to Moses." The only reason to add "According to some scholars" is if there are other scholars who hold a different view (i.e., if you could demonstrate what I have demonstrated here). So? As soon as you can provide the other view, with one or two citations from reliable sources, you should go ahead and make the edit youwant to make. If you do not have the sources, then why do you bring it up? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine! Would you kindly hold yourself to your own standard and cite some of these other scholars who disagree? Please don't just cite Childs again, unless you include a quotation of where he actually disagrees, because I can't find it. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you even read the article? I added the sources when I edited it. I don't add content to articles without adding sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

SLR it would be helpful if you would quote from the sources here so that this can be resolved. It is not self-evident just because someone adds a reference that it verifies a certain statement accurately. Proving one's point directly is the way to resolve the situation. Also, unless I'm mistaken, you haven't added a direct statement to the entry that is comparable to the one Kwami is questioning here. Please, for the sake of resolution, can you quote sources that negate Kwami's contention. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you delete sourced content without providing contrary sources. It would be appreciated if you would provide that, or there is no reason to accept your deletions. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Christ, are you guys lazy. Okay, I will simplify it for you. First' look at the article. Second, look at the first paragraph. Third, look at the sentence that begins "Other Bible scholars ...". If your concentration lasts the whole four or five lines, you will see the three sources for the view conveniently labeled as "other" which normal Wikipedia readers usually find enough to get the point. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we're lazy because you've been unwilling to justify your deletions ever since you joined this discussion.

I've followed your instructions. I don't see how that line has anything to do with the point in question, and from what I can access of the refs, they don't seem to either. (I could read all of them if I were willing to make a two-hour road trip to the nearest library that has them, but I am too lazy to do that on the off chance the two pages I can't see might be relevant when the two pages I can see are not.) — kwami (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If you do not see what they have to do with your point, then I must have misunderstood your point. What is your point? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that Ex34 is the TCs. I'm not even claiming that Ex34 is thought to be the TCs by some scholars. In fact, apart from Greenberg, who was probably being pointy (in WP jargon), I know of no-one who's said that Ex34 rather than Deut5 are the TCs. Rather, numerous sources note that the Bible calls Ex34 the TCs. The question is why, and that's where the various POVs come in: the phrase was added later, the text was changed, the RD and ED were competing TC's, "TCs" is deuteronomic wording alien to Exodus (which spoke of the CC), the ED was a development of the RD, the RD was a reaction to the ED, etc. I've come across dozens of different POVs as to what the phrase "TCs" is doing in Ex34, and I have no idea which is correct. (To me it is merely a matter of historical interest.) Nonetheless, even sources which reject Ex34 as a variant of the TCs note that the Bible calls it the TCs. These sources do not represent a particular POV, but vary in faith and in liberality.

So, I'd like to make the AFAICT uncontroversial statement that Ex34 is called the TCs by the Bible. Not that it is therefore necessarily a variant of the TCs: that indeed is a specific POV and needs to be presented as such. We could word it to say that it isn't accepted as the TCs, that only some scholars even accept it as a TCs, and that there are numerous conflicting theories about it. Now, if you have RSs that Ex34:28, while appearing to refer to Ex34 actually refers to Ex20 or Deut5 or something else, then I have no problem incorporating that as well. But I don't know of such sources. All I've seen though are things like Childs, which AFAICT denies that Ex34 is the TCs or even a variant of the TCs (as several of my sources do) without explaining what Ex34:28 is doing in Ex34 rather than in Ex20 or wherever he thinks it belongs. (One of my sources just called it "problematic" and left it at that. Others have said it's "difficult".) That is, Childs does not contradict the several sources I provided which note that the Bible calls Ex34 the TCs even while they reject Ex34 as actually being a variant of the TCs. — kwami (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that several sources (such as Childs) argue that Exod. 34:14-26 is not the Ten Commandments is quite enough; they don't have to actually say "and therefore the Bible doesn't identify Exod. 34:14-26 as the Ten Commandments". And I have provided sources that make this explicit statement too. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"So, I'd like to make the AFAICT uncontroversial statement that Ex34 is called the TCs by the Bible" Whew! I am glad I did understand your point. You seem to think we need a source saying that the view you keep pushing is wrong. That is not true. We would only need a source that says the view is wrong if we were to add into the article the statement, "some scholars consider thif view wrong." But neither I nor anyone else has added such a statement, so we do not need to add such a source. All I have done is added that in addition to this view there is another view - so all I need to do is show that there is another view. The sources I provide do show that there is another view. Since there is another view, what you just wrote here is a view, not a fact. Now, I have always agree that this view rightfully belongs in the article, and I have not deleted the view from the article, so I do not understand why you are obsessing on this matter. I do not care whether or not Childs has an explanation for why the phrase "ten things/words" is found in Exodus 34. it is a good question, and any significant scholar who has an interpretation that answers this question (e.g. that "ten words" refers to verses 10-26) should be cited in the article. But even if Childs does not have his own answer to the question, as long as he (and the three sources I provide) say that the Bible calls verses 10-26 the coenant code and not the Ten Commandments, we have demonstrated that this is a view. So we have two views. period.Slrubenstein | Talk 02:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide those sources? I've done a concordance search, and I can't find the phrase "covenant code", at least not in the KJV. Could you cite where Childs or the others say the Bible refers to it with that phrase? or just give the verse? — kwami (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

SLR, there seems to be some rather deep confusion here. "Small covenant code" and "ritual Decalogue" are both examples of what scholars have labeled this set of commandments. I'm unaware of any scholarship that claims that the Bible calls these commandments by either of those names. What Kwami has argued is that sources do make the statement that the Bible refers to these commandments as "the ten commandments". What he is asking for is a source that says the Bible refers to them as something different, or even better that claims, as you do, that this is only one view of many. It appears to that you have incorrectly conflated the differences between scholars in terms of what they chose to call these commandments and what theories they hold about when and why they were written with what these scholars recognize about the Biblical text itself. Do you see the problem here?Griswaldo (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources I provide say that the Bible says that the chapter refers to the covenant code. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been five days, and the deleting editors have yet to provide a source that contradicts the well-sourced claim that they've deleted. I've therefore restored it and its sources to the article. I am of course willing to modify that claim to accurately reflect what other sources say. Jay, SL, please provide sources that would justify the deletion of a sourced statement, or you're simply being disruptive. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Why whould I provide a source that contradicts your view? Your view is not wrong and the covenant code view is not wrong. They are both different views. Wikipedia is about presenting verifiable views, not truth. You think that to provide another view different from yours I need a source cntradicting your view? Sorry, kwami, I am not a fundamentalist and neithe is Wikipedia. We can provide both views. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

SLR, as I now understand it, the problem is not how you describe it. The problem is that you have not presented a view in any sources that actually contradicts the one Kwami has presented. Kwami is not arguing that "Ritual Decalogue" is the only view, to which you can counter with "Covenant code" is an alternate view. Kwami is asking for a view that differs on the idea that the bible uses the term "ten commandments" in referring to these laws. He contends that different scholars have different theories about why that is and that this is where the differences you mention come in, but he has not seen any contradict this basic fact about the text itself. I have to say, I've seen nothing to contradict him on that. Can you please answer this question and not the other one that no one appears to be asking. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Those scholars (whom I have cited) who call it the covenant code do so because Exodus 34 calls it the covenant code.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So we're back to the point where we need to accept whatever you say just because you say you have a source somewhere, but you will not accept that as sufficient reason for anyone else to make a change. Where does it say it? AFAICT, the phrase does not appear anywhere in the OT. — kwami (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

SLR, in other words, it not enough for you to just list a number of scholars, and say that the agree to this or that. You have to provide evidence that they support a particular position. Does that make sence to you? Steve kap (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

No, we have some sources that consider it a Ten Commandments, and others that don't. Harrelson in The Ten Commandments and Human Rights (pp. 28-29) quite clearly distinguishes the Ten Commandments from various other lists of commandments/"decalogues". So do Childs (above) and the Handbook of Biblical Criticism given as a reference in the article itself. WP:NPOV is quite clear on this; when reliable sources differ, we can't state one set of opinions as fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Jay, you know that's not the point. The question is whether the Bible calls them the TCs, not whether they are the TCs. We have sources which deny that they're the TCs at the same times as noting that they're called the TCs. The question is, do you have any source which contradicts the well-sourced claim that they're called the TCs? So far I haven't seen one. — kwami (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's the point! We have sources that claim the Bible calls it a Ten Commandments, and others that indicate that it's actually "higher criticism" biblical scholars who do. That's all; we can't have Wikipedia's narrative voice taking a position on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, as stated below, the point here is that the traditional and common understanding of the Pentateuch is that Exodus 34:28 refers to the Ten Commandments of Exodus 20:2-17, not to the "Ritual Decalogue" of Exodus 34:11-26. The view that the Bible (via Exodus 34:28) "identifies" Exodus 34:11-26 as the "Ten Commandments" is an opinion about the Biblical text, no less so than the traditional view that the Bible (via Exodus 34:28) identifies Exodus 20:2-17 as the Ten Commandments. One cannot assert (in Wikipedia's narrative voice) that one specific opinion about what the Bible says is simple fact. That's the kind of claim that's best left to religious zealots and true believers, not Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And it's those sources which I have been fruitlessly asking for for the past year. Per the discussion below, it would appear that you have one source to support this POV, vs. my nine. That's fine: with actual sources provided, we can summarize what they actually say. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I provided three sources quite some time ago. What is fruitless is providing you with sources - you are intent on doing original research, because what you care most about is that we say "what the Bible really says." I say we have mutliple interpretations of Exodus 34, and provided three. But there is no arguing with a fundamentalist. The Bible says what it says it says and that's that, right kwami? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I’ve checked about 20 verses, and, in every case so far, it turns out that the bible does indeed say what it says. I’ve found zero counter-examples. But I’ll keep checking. Steve kap (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Second question - Are there unequivocally ten of these commandments or is there dispute over that? If the answer is yes, everyone agrees that there are ten of them, can I ask why we can't change the first sentence to read something like: "The Ritual Decalogue or small Covenant code is a list of ten commandments given in Exodus 34:11-26." I tried making that change earlier but was reverted, though I never saw an explanation of why. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a matter of interpretation. There are not ten imperative statements, though it is easier to group the RD statements into ten commands than it is in the case of the ED. But even in the case of the ED, different denominations number them differently. Best to leave out any claim that they actually are ten, and leave that phrasing to the Bible itself. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Harrelson states that there are twelve commandments, but that the fifth and eighth are eliminated, since the Sabbath observance commandment is incongruous, and the command to appear before the Lord three times a year is already covered in the festival commandments. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

kwame, lnguage that you keep reinserting like "one of three sets of laws the Bible identifies as the Ten Commandments" is simply unacceptable. It is not unacceptable because I do not believe it. It is unacceptable because it violates our NOR and NPOV policies. You seem to believe the Bible says this and you have certrainly provided your reasons based on how you read the Bible. That violates NOR. And you are presenting a view as if it were a fact. The Bible does not identify these laws as one of three sets of laws called the Tend Commandments. Certain scholars interpret the Bible as saying this.

You are the hypocrite, not me. I have never deleted that view from the articl, or sources supporting that view. I have simply changed your original research to make it clear that this is a view, and I have added another view, with soources.

Griswaldo, there is no double standard here. I hold myself to a simple standard: I add significant views from reliable sources and identify them as views. I hold kwame to the same standard - not mine, but Wikipedia's standard - and he does not like it. He is not the first editor whose personal beliefs are threatened by Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and he won't be the last, but as long as he keeps adding his fundamentalist views as if they were truth, I will keep editing to mak sure the policy complies with NPOV. And I repeat, I have never deleted the view kwami believes in from the article, nor have I ever made an edit hich suggests that the view I added (small covenant code) is the truth; I have never added a sentence analogous to wame's., I have never written "one of two sets of laws the Bible identifies as a covenant." That sentence violates NPOV, and I have never, never ever, added it. So don't accuse me of a double standard. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Once you finally provided a source for Ex34:28 referring to Ex20 being the "traditional view" (though your ref admits it is a difficult case to argue), I reworded the lede to say just that, and even gave it precedence, but retained the numerous refs that portray Ex34:28 as instead referring to Ex34. You then deleted that again, along with all the refs. You are persistent in promoting only one view of several.

I find your conclusions about my beliefs amusing, as well as your contention that we must delete sources that support the POV you do not agree with in order to comply with NPOV. But our beliefs are not the point here. Sources are. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Interpretations

Well, I’ve read thru this section, and it certainly seems to be a disaster,:

• “After Moses destroyed the original stones”,,, really? So Moses is a historical figure now? Not even a “according to the bible”? Presenting mythology as fact,, not good.

• “The commandments in the RD are expanded upon the the CC”…. The view that one is an expansion of the other seems rather fringe. And the only purpose of this tit-bit seems to be argumentative, not informative.

• “There are essentially two positions..” , and yet, the 3d position, the one held by the vast majority of scholars, that the RD is a much older version of the 10c, seems to be left off.

Do we need an “Interpretations” section (which ref the opinion of scholars”, AND an “academic interpretation” section? The whole section seems to be a vehicle to push a MPOV, which squares the text (by weird logic) to some peoples particular religious beliefs. Salvage what you can, put in the AI section, and delete, I say. Moreover, shouldn’t we go back to a stable version, before this edit warring, and give this another go?Steve kap (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

attribution to Goethe

Badè noted in 1914 the parallels to the Covenant Code and also said the RD was a set of "ten commandments", so Aaron is not new in holding both positions. Badè also credits Goethe, though he says this had been frequently noticed.

William Badè (1914) "The Decalogue, a Problem in Ethical Development". In The University of California Chronicle, vol. xvi.

(p67) ... by what we may call the ritual decalogue.^{4: Ex. 34:14–28, designated as the "ten words" in vs. 28. Repeated with slight variations in Ex. 23.}

Bible students have long noted the fact that Hebrew tradition has transmitted two sets of ten commandments, almost completely dissimilar. To the German poet Goethe belongs the credit of having first recognized a decalogue in the "Ten Words" of the thirty-fourth chapter of Exodus.

...

The chapter in question has evidently been much edited, so that in spite of the express mention of ten commandments,^{5: Ex. 34.28.} it now contains twelve or thirteen.

He calls the 5/20 version "the standard decalogue".

BTW, he doesn't say that Judaism had previously been less ethical, whatever Goethe's opinion was, as "Hebrew tradition itself" notes that the moral code of the ED had been in place "from the remotest antiquity" (p66), rather, he says that "the prophets of the eighth century B.C. [...] shifted the emphasis from the ritual to the ethical". — kwami (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A dispute here has been reported at WP:AN3

Please see WP:AN3#User:Kwamikagami reported by Jayjg (Result: ). EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Cooperative enterprise

Explain yourself, Jay. WP is a cooperative enterprise, not a self-appointed dictatorship. — kwami (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. When your use of a phrase has been reverted 16 times by 5 different editors, and objected to strenuously in Talk, it's time to think of other ways of saying things. English is a very rich and flexible language. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Then give reasons other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I can't think your thoughts for you. Point by point: what is wrong, and why? — kwami (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Many reasons have been given, but all met with WP:ICAN'THEARYOU. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel the same way. The reasons you've given above do not support the edits you make, as far as I can see. Where you have given supported, rational arguments that I could follow, I have incorporated them. I'm not trying to be uncooperative, merely to prevent you from deleting the notability of the subject. — kwami (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just in case my POV got lost above, I do not claim the RD is "the" TCs. I'm not even sure it's "a" TCs. My points are these:

• The passage is notable enough to have a name of it own ("RD" or whatever) because people have argued that it is a version of the TCs or is at least called the TCs. There are three such passages. (There are of course parallels elsewhere, and the RD is largely parallel to the CC, but AFAIK no-one calls those parallels the TCs or claims the Bible does.)
• Some people who deny it's the TCs nonetheless accept that it's called the TCs in the biblical text. (They may say it's "surprising" or "difficult".) Thus your repeated emphasis on s.o. saying it's not the TCs misses the point, which is whether v 28 refers to the RD.
• (new, based on recent edits) We shouldn't call the ED "the" TCs in an article discussing how some scholars see that phrase as referring to the RD. That's fine elsewhere, since in common speech that's what it means, but that's not necessarily what it means here.

— kwami (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia for general readers, not academics; the writing should be most clear for the general reader, which is why we word things in that way. Feel free to word it differently for any papers you write on the subject for peer-reviewed academic journals. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the general reader who wishes to expand his knowledge on this subject, right? If a reader didn’t want to know about the different terms used, the (possibly) different versions of the 10C, (possibly) from different points in history, I doubt he’d find himself here. Seems to me your trying to have your pick of terms to actually influence the CONTENT, the meaning. Clearly we can't have that. Steve kap (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

We still write for the general reader. One can "expand his knowledge" using non-academic terminology. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Jay, we follow our sources, not what you decide our readers should or should not know. We certainly shouldn't misrepresent our sources in the name of making them "accessible". — kwami (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

With your latest edit, though better, you got the verse # wrong twice, despite me correcting it last time, and the word "proximity" was ambiguous, as it suggested it was the reason to ID Ex20 as the TCs. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Added a ref that the context identifying the RD as a decalogue is not just the phrase TCs after it, but also the lead-up into it, that vv 10 & 28 go together to frame the list as the TCs. — kwami (talk) 01:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The RD is still verses 11-26, though, and the phrase aseret had'varim comes two verses later. I've made that explicit, as "adjacent" was ambiguous and inaccurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. — kwami (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mays 1988

"[Exodus] 34:1-28 The Proclamation of the Covenant: [...] it is the clear implication of v. 1 that the new tablets are to have the same thing on them that the broken tablets had, and v. 28 states flatly that Moses writes 'the ten utterances' on the tablets." (Mays 1988)

This source doesn't mention the "Ritual Decalogue". What page is this from, and what is its relevance? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone else will have to answer - I added this source to the section it is in, but I was just cutting and pasting a source kwame added. It does seem to me to express the view that "ten words" in Ex. 34 is not referring to any of the commandments stated in Ex. 34 but in fact is referring to the commandments in Ex. 20 ... that is, Mays is not distinguishing between an ethical and a ritual decalogue, or stating that the commeandments in Ex. 34 comprise a "decalogue." But I did not introduce the source to the article, so you need kwame to explain it for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's clearer from context.[1] Mays is one of several sources which deny that the RD is the TCs at the same time as acknowledging that the phrase "TCs" is used for the RD, the point that Jay is so insistent on deleting. The page, BTW, is 143. — kwami (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, no one has ever questioned that some people refer to the laws in Ex 34 as a RD. The point is it appears we agree that Mays does not hold this view. To edit with integrrity, we should use sources for the views they express, not the views hey do not. If Mays' view is that "ten words" in 34 refers to Ex. 20, the article should use the source to that end. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I seem to remember someone writing 'nobody, but nobody ref to the rd as the 10C'. But seems we're all in agreement now, anyone that would have said such thing would be just about as wrong as he could be. Yes? 05:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) He does not agree that it's the Decalogue, but he does note that it's presented as the Decalogue. He describes how the two sets of tablets are supposed to have the same laws on them, but that they don't: "This is surprising, because it is the clear implication of v. 1 that the new tablets are to have the same thing on them that the broken tablets had, and v. 28 states flatly that Moses writes "the ten utterances" on the tablets. ... however, there is a different list of apodictic laws ... in place of the Decalogue." That is, we expect to find the Decalogue on the tablets of the Covenant, because that's what the narrations states, but instead we find this different set of laws that some call the RD. That's exactly my point: regardless of whether you accept the RD as "a" or "the" TCs, it is presented as if it were the TCs. This is the point that Jay keeps deleting. — kwami (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, stop discussing me, and start discussing article content, per WP:NPA and WP:TPG#YES. Also, please make more accurate Talk: page statements; your insertion has been removed by five different editors, and I haven't removed anything from the article in over two weeks. Now, it's clear that what he actually is says that one would expect to "find the Decalogue" in Exodus 34:11-26, but instead we find "a different list of apodictic laws". He says the exact opposite of what he was being cited for saying, that Exodus 34:11-26 is the Decalogue - he says it's not, and that is surprising. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jay, I don't see how you can find this point so hard to understand. What you summarize of Mays is exactly the point I keep trying to make. Why would he expect to find the TCs in Ex34? Because the Bible (appears) to say that they're the TCs. Mays says it's "surprising" that the aren't the same laws as in Ex20. If Ex34:28 referred to Ex20, they're'd be nothing surprising about that. Other authors theorize that there are two authors/traditions with different sets of TCs. You provided one source that the phrase TCs is traditionally understood to refer to Ex20 rather than Ex34. So why the refusal to say as much in the lede? — kwami (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mays actually says it's surprising that they aren't the Decalogue - so yes, the Bible does mention the "Ten Words", and he thinks that therefore the Ten Commandments should appear immediately before verse 38. He's surprised that they don't - so, he's saying that Exodus 34:11-26 is not the Ten Commandments. The problem with the lede has been the constant attempts to have the specific theory/religious belief that Exodus 34:11-26 is the "Ten Commandments" stated as fact, in Wikipedia's voice - for example the incessant attempts to restore the "one of three sets of laws the Bible identifies as the Ten Commandments" language to the lede. No, it's a set of commandments some Biblical scholars (though clearly not Mays) associate with the Ten Commandments - contrasted with the standard set of commandments that most everyone (scholars - including Mays, theologians, and everyone else) calls the Ten Commandments. So, attempts to disguise this POV by pretending that they are equivalent won't work. So too, attempts to quietly extend the commandments to verse 38 (when they end at verse 36), specifically for the purpose of then claiming the commandments themselves contain... the phrase "Ten Commandments" simply won't fly. There has been an on-going attempt to have the lede say as early and as often as possible, in Wikipedia's voice, that Exodus 34:11-26, the "Ritual Decalogue", is the "Ten Commandments". That is what those concerned with policy (specifically WP:NPOV and WP:V) are keeping out of the lede. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That was only true as long as we had no source to the contrary. As soon as you finally provided a source to the contrary, this was portrayed as two POVs: first, the traditional POV, that Ex34:28 refers to Ex20 (cited with your source), and only then the POV of the sources I and others provided, that Ex34:28 is part of the narration of the Covenant in Ex34. Now, if the wording was debatable, we could have debated it, but it was simply reverted. — kwami (talk) 03:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What was "simply reverted" was the statement in the lede that Exodus 34:11-26 was "one of three sets of laws the Bible identifies as the Ten Commandments". Fifteen times. By you. Despite the fact that multiple sources were provided that disagreed with this view. Despite the fact that people kept pointing out that NPOV forbids using Wikipedia's narrative voice to make these kinds of religious claims. And no amount of "debate" stopped this incessant reverting in of policy-violating material. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Mays actually says it's surprising that they aren't the Decalogue" - rrr, no, Jayd, he says its suprprising that whats listed on the 2nd sets of stone isn't the same as the 1st Decalogue. The content is the object of suprize. The labels, who really cares. Steve kap (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Steve kap, are you really claiming there were two actual sets of stone tablets, one carved by God that says one thing, and one by Moses that says a different thing, and that that's what Mays is saying? We shouldn't be using Wikipedia's narrative voice to state that the stories in the Bible are true; I thought you were a firm supporter of this point, so I'm surprised to see you stating the opposite here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayjd,thanks for the responce, but I'm not sure you're really responding to me:

"you really claiming there were two actual sets of stone tablets..." -rrr nope. I didn't write anything remotely like that.

"We shouldn't be using Wikipedia's narrative voice to state that the stories in the Bible are true"- I agree, your point?

"I thought you were a firm supporter of this point, so I'm surprised to see you stating the opposite here. "-rrr, I would be to,, but I wouldn't. And I didn't..

Now, let me try to answer some "your" questions:

"Do you think its disruptive to delibrately missunderstand someone"- Why yes Jayjd, its is!

"Is it contrary to Wiki standards"- True again Jayjd, why would anyone be childish enough to do it?

The point the May made was that, in the point of the story that one Moses was supposed to get a replacement set of commandments, he comes down with something much different. Thats the suprise. Not what this list is called, what the list contains. Steve kap (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mays is surprised that the list given in Exodus 34:11-26 is not the Ten Commandments, or "Decalogue". That much, at least, is clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Jay, you seem to be operating under a misunderstanding of what the word “the” means, as if only one thing in the world can carry the definite article “the”. I’m not sure May had this same misunderstanding, or, indeed, was as concerned with labels as you seem to be. No, what’s clear is that May was surprised with the CONTENT of THE commandants found in Ex 34, that they were not the same as the ED. 130.76.96.149 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Harper Collins Bible Commentary is not a very significant publication. Why use it? Why not use the Anchor bible, for example, which is the most notable Bible Commentary (non-sectarian)? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Another good point, although, now that it's clear that it actually states that Exodus 34:11-26 isn't the Ten Commandments, I'm sure other editors here won't want to use it anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, is this willful misunderstanding? Jesus Christ, are you trying to be an idiot? Of course Mays says it isn't the TCs! Haven't I said that multiple times? What the fuck is it with you two being unable to comprehend simple statements? Mays says it isn't the TCs, but says that's surprising, because it's presented as the TCs. How can you possibly misunderstand that over and over and over and over? Since you're not an idiot, and are presumably mentally sound, I can only conclude that you are editing in bad faith. Anyway, you present the same bullshit argument in the next section, so let's continue there. — kwami (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You still have not answered my question. What were your criteria or choosing this source? mays is not a significant scholar of Exodus. Why not Nahum Sarna or Moshe Greenberg or William Propp, all of whom are leading experts on Exodus? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell you what: you provide those sources, as we have asked you so many times to do, and we'll include them. — kwami (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am just asking why. Surely, you know what your criteria were. Why can't you answer a simple question? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the sources I had access to for the ones who actually addressed the issue. If you have better sources which address the issue, fine: let's see them. I've never tried excluding your sources, you've simply failed to provide them, and somehow that's my fault. Quit being so lazy and do the work you need to justify the edits you want. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have provided sources for all content I have added to the article. Having done a fair amount of research I wouldn't say I am lazy. But I still do notunderstand your criteria. sources you "had access to" is just silly - aren't all of us using those sources we have access to? How could anyone use a source they do not have access to? I do not question that you have access to the source. I am asking what your criteria is. That it addresses the issue? If the book on astronomy I "had access to" were HA Rey's The Stars, or There's No Place Like Space, should I just go ahead and use those to edit the article on astronomy? Would they be enough to make it a reliable source for a significant view on astronomy? Surely we should have other criteria. I am asking what your criteria were. Frankly, it sounds like you were cherry-picking. Surely the best way to build an article is to establish the significant views and the best sources and then build content from there. How did you establish that these were the best sources? What do you mean, "access to?" Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with debating the sources. Some of them are quite good, some less so. And I don't have a problem with the material you've added. The problem lies in you deleting sourced material. (Are you now yelling "na na na!" with your fingers in your ears? because I've said this many many times.) You have given no good reason for excluding from the lede the reason the RD is notable. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Our real argument is over the nature of the view you wish to represent. I have never removed the sources for any view. Most of the sources you claim I removed, I moved to another section; I removed one or two that were merely redundent or were not being used to support the point made by the source. As to the reason why RD is notable, he answer here is the answer it is for ANY article: it is he significant view of important scholars. That is the only reason ANYTHING is notable enough to include in Wikipedia, and the lead makes this clear.

"I don't have a problem with debating the sources." Great! So now will you answer my question, what your criteria were for selecting these particular sources? I do not see this as a debate, just a simple question which you have yet to answer. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you have been obfuscating for months, so you go first to demonstrate that you actually intend to edit in good faith. (1) What are your sources that Ex34:28 does not refer to Ex34? [please quote, or link if it's on line, so that I don't have to track them down to verify] and (2) why do you wish to remove from the lede the well-sourced POV that Ex34:28 does refer to Ex34? Note, this is unrelated to the question of whether the RD is "a" or "the" Decalogue. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) just read the content I added and you will see the sources I added (2) really? What is the title of this WP article? What is this article about? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"I don't have a problem with debating the sources." Great! So now will you answer my question, what your criteria were for selecting these particular sources? I do not see this as a debate, just a simple question which you have yet to answer. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop playing stupid and answer the question we asked you months ago. If you're not going to discuss this in good faith, then bugger off. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"I don't have a problem with debating the sources." Great! So now will you answer my question, what your criteria were for selecting these particular sources? I do not see this as a debate, just a simple question which you have yet to answer. And this is the fifth time I am asking, politely. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you will find Kwami’s criteria for picking sources is the same as the Wiki standards; that the source is reliable and relevant . Now, I’d like to invite you to discuss in good faith, or follow the other suggestion made. Steve kap (talk) 20:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

What suggestion? To use it to support the point Mays clearly makes that the "RD" is not the Ten Commandments? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Really? Does that sound like something I would suggest? Gentlemen, good faith means that you respond to your best understanding of the suggestions and comments of others, and your best understanding of the text thats being ref to. Can you honestly say thats what you're up to? 130.76.96.151 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC) Steve kap (talk) 14:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the side discussions (per WP:TALK), one point Mays clearly makes is that the "RD" is not the Ten Commandments. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that. It's not the Star-Spangled Banner either. Would you kindly answer the question? — kwami (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think the question is. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Jayjd, in a conversation about the history of the 10C, the different versions, the different grouping, what is ref to as the 10C, ect, the question "what is 'the' Then Commandments" is just a stupid question. "The" 10 commandents is whatever 10 commandents the speaker is indicating, even if its not what you think are the right one. Its just an artifact of the language. Steve kap (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. Mine is clear; Mays says the RD is not the TC. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand, lets walk thru this, if I say to my family “Let’s all get in THE car” and you say to your family “Let’s all get in THE car”, is quite likely that we are talking about two different cars, yes? 130.76.96.153 (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talknig about. Kwami, on which page are these quotes found? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page # added. — kwami (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

My dear friend. Good faith discussion requires that you actually read the points being made before you respond to them. In your previous posts, it seems to me that you’re under the impression that the phrase “the ten commandments” can only ever be used to ref to one thing. I was trying to explain, by way of example, how that is not so. You said you didn’t understand, I tried to explain.

If you can’t faithfully read 2 simple sentences, how can you expect to participate in a discussion? How, with such behavior, could you fairly expect others to take YOUR points seriously. Steve kap (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What change to the article text, based on reliable sources, are you proposing? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Jay, please stop playing dumb, and follow the practices of a good faith discussion. 130.76.96.153 (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Steve, Jay is working with us. Since anything any of us has said could be lost in all the verbiage above, could you repeat any remaining unaddressed points you may have here? — kwami (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing Kwami. Jay made the statement “..Mays says the RD is not the TC”. Well, that’s true in only a very limited sense. That’s true only in the sense the THE 10C means the modern, most popular, 10C. “The”, when left unqualified, does have that meaning. However, in a more general sense, and in the context of a conversation about (possible) different versions of the 10c, “the” 10 commandments simplify means “the” ten commandments that the speaker is referring to. So, in that sense, the statement “..Mays says the RD is not the TC” is completely NOT true. I think that Jay is confusing the 2 different meanings of the definite article “the”, in order to make a spurious point. I’ve made this point several times, in several different ways.

Now, if Jay is indeed cooperating, I’d whish he’s acknowledge this point. True, this point doesn’t contain a specific suggestion, but neither does Jay’s statement that this is in response to. And both have implications on how the article should be written. Jay can go thru the history of our correspondence and realize that I’ve tended to answer his points with reasoned arguments, not with a blank “I don’t understand” or a rather terse “What change to the article…”, and I’d appreciate the same courtesy, thank you very much indeed. A good faith discussion requires no less. Steve kap (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

Well, we no longer make that claim about Mays, so unless Jay wishes to restore it I'd say the point is moot. — kwami (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Steve, I don't have any problem understand kwami's or Slrubenstein's comments (or, in fact, anyone else on this talk page), but it's almost never clear to me what actual changes you want to make to the article (or why). And that is, after all, the sole purpose of article Talk: page comments; please review WP:NOTAFORUM for more detail. And yes, kwami, unless relevant objections to its restoration are provided, it will be restored, per my comments in the section below. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Jayjd, What change to the article text, based on reliable sources, are you proposing? Steve kap (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC).

Cross & Livingstone 1997

"There is another and, acc. to many OT critics, older version of the 'Ten Words' preserved in Exod. 34:11-28, where much more emphasis is laid on ritual prescriptions." (Cross & Livingstone 1997).

This source doesn't mention the "Ritual Decalogue". What page is this from, and what is its relevance? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You're joking, right? Please read WP:POINT (even though this is just a talk page) and do not edit in bad faith. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

What page is this quote on, and what point is it supposed to be supporting? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have the page number, and no longer have access to the book.

The point is obvious: "There is another ... version of the 'Ten Words' preserved in Exod. 34:11-28". You can't get much more straightforward than that. — kwami (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that a) we don't even know what page it's on, and b) that other sources make the same point, and c) that there has never been any question that some sources believe that the "Ten Words" menioned to in Exodus 34:28 refers to Exodus 34:11-16, it's not a source that should be used. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If "there has never been any question" on this point, why the adamant refusal to include that in the lede? That is, after all, the reason so many people find this passage so notable or so difficult. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's never been an "refusal to include that in the lede", much less an "adamant" one. The problem with the lede has been the constant attempts to have the specific theory/religious belief that Exodus 34:11-26 is the "Ten Commandments" stated as fact, in Wikipedia's voice - for example the incessant attempts to restore the "one of three sets of laws the Bible identifies as the Ten Commandments" language to the lede. No, it's a set of commandments some Biblical scholars associate with the Ten Commandments - contrasted with the standard set of commandments that most everyone (scholars, theologians, and everyone else) calls the Ten Commandments. So, attempts to disguise this POV by pretending that they are equivalent won't work. So too, attempts to quietly extend the commandments to verse 38 (when they end at verse 36), specifically for the purpose of then claiming the commandments themselves contain... the phrase "Ten Commandments" simply won't fly. There has been an on-going attempt to have the lede say as early and as often as possible, in Wikipedia's voice, that Exodus 34:11-26, the "Ritual Decalogue", is the "Ten Commandments". That is what those concerned with policy (specifically WP:NPOV and WP:V) are adamant will not happen. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet again, you misrepresent the situation. The RD was never presented as "the" TCs; it was only presented as one of three lists called the TCs. Which is perfectly true, as you know full well. And as soon as you provided a source to support your long-standing claim, this was changed to a specific POV, with your POV presented first. Yet that was still not good enough. So yes, there is an adamant refusal to allow a well-sourced POV in the lede. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT doesn't change anything.

You do have a valid point with saying the RD "contains" the phrase TCs. But that is the kind of thing that can be corrected locally, or discussed on the talk page, without a global revert. (BTW, Aaron says it's verses 12–26, not 11–26.) — kwami (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Two sources supporting the same point? Heaven forfend! I think think they prefer 1 source over 2, because, when it comes to ideas they disagree with, 1 is closer to the number that they are going for. Which is zero. Steve kap (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think both of you are missing Jayjg's point. In English, people often bold words for emphasis. My advice is to see if anything he wrote is in bold, and focus on that as his main point. "the" is not in bold, so I suspect that is not the main point. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and when we take the bold point into consideration, you revert it anyway, so your reasons are spurious. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review Slrubenstein's comment immediately above; the issue here is, and has always been, an on-going attempt to have the lede say as early and as often as possible, in Wikipedia's voice, that the Bible says Exodus 34:11-26 is the "Ten Commandments". Not that some scholars believe that the Bible says it, but rather, stating as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that the Bible says it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jay, would you actually read the edit before expounding on it? This WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT shit is really annoying. The lede said exactly what you now say it doesn't say. We say "A", you say it should be "B", so we change it to "B", and you revert it because you claim it says "A". If you're too lazy to read the edits, don't edit here. — kwami (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the very last version of the lede you put in? The one that didn't even mention the "Ethical Decalogue" (Ten Commandments)? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the last one which included the material in question, before SLR deleted it: [2] (And, in case you didn't hear it earlier, I agree with you that we should not say that the phrase TCs is "in" the RD, so yes, that first line would need to be rephrased. The point is that the RD is notable precisely because it's followed by that phrase.) — kwami (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

That version contained the phrase "one of three sets of laws the Bible identifies as the Ten Commandments" (albeit preceded by a bit of waffle). Please review the previous comments in this thread. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"many scholars believe it refers to the laws in Exodus 34, which would then be one of three sets of laws the Bible identifies as the Ten Commandments". How is that not supported by the sources? That "waffle" is exactly what you've been demanding: that we portray this as one POV. What, I comply with your demand, and you change the goalposts? That's not a good-faith discussion. If you have specific problems with the wording [actually, it would be two lists, but the third is commonly ID'd as the TCs as well; that can be reworded], what would you suggest that would be better, without censoring the POV you appear to disagree with? — kwami (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

kwami, I've been ignoring the personal comments, which WP:NPA and WP:TPG#YES forbid, in the hope you would reform, but your last comment ended with "without censoring the POV you appear to disagree with?" Stop making pejorative and personal comments about or to other editors; I will only respond to your comments if they are solely about article content. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You refuse to give substantial responses regardless, so what difference does it make? Several of us have been asking variations on this question for months, and you've never given it a straightforward answer. If you want a cooperative, good-faith discussion, you could start by being cooperative. God knows I've tried, and it hasn't been reciprocated. — kwami (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to give substantial responses to any comments that comply with WP:NPA and WP:TALK, as I have consistently done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why would Griswaldo say getting an answer from the two of you is like pulling teeth?

Okay, how is "many scholars believe [Ex34:28] refers to the laws in Exodus 34, which would then be one of three sets of laws the Bible identifies as the Ten Commandments" not supported by the sources? — kwami (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is simpler and clearer to say "Scholars (and name the most notable ones e.g. the ones who first made the claim or are best known for having argued it) argue that Ex 34:28 refers to one of three sets of "ten commandments" in the Bible" Fewer words, makes the point. But now the question is, who are the most notable scholars to have claimed this? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fewer words, but less excact. You've left off that they (the scholars) see Ex 34:28 as ref to the set of laws in Ex 34 (the laws immidiatly proceeding Ex 34:28, in fact), which was the whole point of the sentence, I believe. Steve kap (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"Scholars (and name the most notable ones e.g. the ones who first made the claim or are best known for having argued it) argue that Ex 34:28 refers to Ex. 34: 11-26 as one of three sets of "ten commandments" in the Bible" Slrubenstein | Talk 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, a couple of problems. May, for one, doesn’t ‘argue’ that Ex 34:28 ref to the RD, he just takes it as a give, presumably because of its proximity to the RD ( that is, directly following it), and using the normal rules of grammar. And the “as one of three…” phrase, I just don't know what it means, or what it adds, and there is no evidence for the statement, in ref to the subject scholars. I’d cut it. Steve kap (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay for the sake of compromise I will give in and accept your cutting the "as one of three." No more argument against leaving that out. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It is supported: "The Ten Commandments occur in three versions. Two are almost identical with each other [...], but the third, which apparently replaced the tablets that were broken, is quite different" (Alexander & Baker 2003:501) But we do have other sources which describe two lists ID'd as the TCs by the Bible, so it would be best to not claim it is one of three so named by the Bible. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no point in putting speculation into the lede "if X is Y, then that means that etc." Just state that scholars think it refers back to 34:11-26. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Then how would you correct it without blanking content? Even the sources had been blanked! — kwami (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already done so, and without "blanking" even one source. Please retract your incorrect statement. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Which statement? — kwami (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That my edit blanked sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that. I said you blanked content, which you did. And the sources for the article had been blanked, though I didn't check by who. (You haven't restored them, despite your off-stated concern for sources.) — kwami (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

When you say I blanked "content" (rather than sources), did you mean your insertion into the first sentence of the term "Exodus-34 Decalogue"? That term had already been discussed at Talk:Ritual Decalogue/Archive 2#"one of three lists", and the conclusion was that, because of its extreme rarity, it didn't belong. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Jay, your opinion in a discussion is not the "conclusion" of that discussion.

Yes, it is rare. So is "Small Covenant Code". If you want to remove rare names, SCC needs to go as well. Personally, I have no problem with rare names—we are, after all, a refererce,—but we shouldn't be picking the ones we like and leaving out the others. I only left out cultic Ten Commandments because it's almost as rare as SCC and can be recognized from the other names. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion concluded with my statement, and you didn't respond. Therefore, that was the conclusion. I've removed all names that get less than 10 gbook hits. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that we all need to fight to have the last word, because whoever gets in the last word is right? Really?

I found a copy of the book, and added the p number. It's under "Commandments, the Ten". It goes into no more detail than the single sentence I quoted. — kwami (talk) 07:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that my statement was not responded to because there was no rational rebuttal, and therefore reflected the consensus. That's still the case. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that whoever has the last word reflects consensus. If you make the same nonsensical argument over and over until people get tired of rebutting it, then you "win" and your POV becomes "consensus". I do hope you're just BS-ing us and don't actually think that way. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I only say what I actually say. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)