t Other Dt variations are multiplication of connecting par- ticles, and of details (the ox and the ass entitled to Sanbath rest), verbal changes ( ' observe * for ' remember * in c. 4, ' desire ' for ' covet ' in the main body of o. 10), and allusive phiiues (' As the Ix>rd thy God commanded thee ' in cs. 4 and 5).
t Wellhausen, however, 'protests against the d priori and consistent preference of the Exod. text,' Comp. d. Hex. : and evidence that his view is spreading is furnished by the argu- ment of Ueisner's painstaking monograph (Der Dekalog).
DECALOGUE
DECALOGUE
581
In opi>osition to the traditional conception of the D. as striitly Mosaic, tliree theories are widely represented in modem criticism — (1) that it is a prophetic compendium or manifesto belonging at the earliest to the 8th cent. B.C. ; (2) that it is in eubstJince Mosaic, but that it was enlarged at a later period by the addition of one or more command- ments, or at least (3) of amplitications and sanctions of the original ' words.'
(1) Against the Mosaic origin it is argued that the tradition does not consistently maintain its claim, but edternatively exhibits a summary of a widely did'erent character (Ex 34"") aa the Mosaic D. (Wellhausen, Comp. d. Hex. p. 331 11'.)* ; that the ancient ' Book of the Covenant ' shows no acquaintance with its content (Baentsch, Das Bundesbuch, p. 92 IF.), and especially that both in general spirit and in detail it is out of harmony with the essentiallv ritualistic religion of pre- prophetic times (following Wellhausen, Kayser, Smend, Baentsch, up. cit. 98). Upon this it is sufficient here to observe that the cardinal a.ssump- tion of this group of scholars, viz. that tlie D. was impossible before the prophetical teaching of the 8th cent., exaggerates the part played by the prophets in lixing the character of tlie OT religion. Assuredly, the prophets did not lirst enunciate, but inherited, the doctrine that true religion utters itself in morality ; and it is an obvious inference from the broad facts of the tradition that this fundamental idea was affirmed by and descended from Moses. That as the founder or reformer of a religion he should have embodied its leading prin- ciples in ' terse ' sentences is not only possible but probable, and the testimony to the fact that in the D. we possess such a summary is too strong to be ■et aside in the interests of a historical theory.t
(2) A second group of critics, while holding tliat ' Moses in the name of J" prescribed to the Israel- ites such a law as is contained in the ten words ' (Kuenen, Bel. Isr., Eng. tr. i. r>. 285), support tlie contention of the first group, tliat one or more of the commandments are post-Mosaic. The main objection to the Mosaic authorship of c. 4 — that it presupposes conditions of agricultural life unlike those under which Moses could have conceived and promulgated it (Monteliore, Ilib. Led. p. 554 j cf. omenA, Reliriionsgesch. p. 139) — is at the most valid against certain of the amplitications. More serious Is the case against the Mosaic origin of c. 2, founded on the facts tliat its prohibition of graven images was disregarded in the time of the judges and of the early monarchy, that the prophets of the Northern Kingdom ottered no opposition to the cult of tlie
•The (o-called Jahwistio D,, flnt Indicated by Ooethe, hu been finally reconstructed by WeUlmusen as follows iltr, Oeich. p. W) :-
1. Thou shaU not worship any Btranpe god.
2. Thou nhalt not make unto thee molten ^odl.
8. Thou shatt keep the feaitt of Unleavened Bread. 4. All the flret-born are mine.
6. Tliou Bhalt keep the feaat of Weeka.
A. Tbou Shalt keep the feast of Ingathering In the tan of the fear.
7. Thou thalt not mingle leavened bread with the blood of my •«rlflie.
8. Thou Shalt not retain until the morning the tat of my feast.
». Thou ahalt bring the best of the first-fruits of thy field to Ifae house ol J" thy Ood.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid In Its mother's milk.
In Ex the cmje really contains 12 precepts, hence there la no •ffreeinent as to the selection to l»e made. It may be noted that it la not claimed that it is Mosaic, but only that it is older than the n. of Ex 20 (cf. amend, lirliijinmiietch. p. <7).
f or this evidence an important element is the tradition that two lAldes of stone conlainini; the I), were placed bv Mom-s in the ark (Ex ^i<*>, Dt W'). The ar);uments UM-d to discredit the traditir>n are set forth fully by Stable, Gettch. d. V. Iitr. L
L4.S7fT., where its existence Is explained b> the suppoHition t the ark originally contained sacred stones associaltHl with the presence of J". Hut surely Mosaism cannot have heipieathed to post^-rity as its most precious legacy a stone-fetish (see Ark
OF TlIS C0VK>li.VT).
golden calves, and that the prophetic conscience ajipears first to have revolted against them in the 8th cent, in .ludah (Kuenen, liel. Isr., Eng. tr. i. 283 tf.). To this it is replied, in general, that the non-observance of a religious law is no proof of its non-existence ; and, in particular, that as the central sanctuaries posses.sed no image in the times of Eli, David, and Solomon, the prohibition must have been early operative as a recognized part of the pure Mosaic system (cf. Kittel, Ilist. Heb., Eng. tr. 1. pp. 248, 249). It may be added that contact with Eg3'ptian idolatry is likely to have made Moses recoil from image-worship. It must, however, be granted that the liistorical facts are perplexing ; and it is at lea-st possible that c. 2 is a development by the prophetical school of a consequence originally only latent in the Mosaic prohibition of the worship of other gods.