(3) A tliird view leaves undisturbed the tradition that Moses was the author of an essentially spiritual and ethical code of ten precepts, but alleges the probability of this having originally existed in a briefer form, to which from time to time various reflexions and promises were added which strengthened their appeal to the mind and will. (Jn this theory, widely held by scholars since Ewald (Gesck. Isr.' ii. 231), command- ments 2, 3, 4, 5 originally wanted the ' reasons annexed,' while 10 may have stoi)j>ed at 'house.' It is strongly supported by the variations of the two texts, and seems irresistible in consideration of the fact that c. 4 presupposes acquaintance with Gn l'-2*. It may be added that the terser version gives a better balance to the two tables, and was more suited to the capacity of the popular memory: and in particular that it represents material common to. and thus attested by, the joint testimony of the two divergent recensions.*
The division of the D. into its ten constituent parts has occA-sioned considerable ditticulty. The three systems, as a<loptcd by different religious communities, may be thus re presented —
Greek and R. 0. and |. ■ .
Eeformed. Lutheran. Jewisn.
Qod the Deliverer out
of Eg^pt . . . Preface Preface a L
Prohibition of poly- "j "1
theism ... a 1 I , (.« •
Prohibition of graven (^ ' ("■ ^
images . . c t J J
•*^**«o«.8-S C8.S-8 c»,8-».
Prohibitions of ooret- I o. lo
ousness .
it
lOt
-o. 10.
The second of these divisionn. introduced after Jewish precedent by Auifustine (ad iCxod.) is slightly Mupportt-d by the fact that C8. 1 and 'I have a Joint Baiiction, and aUo by the Dt text of c. 10, but is equally unhappy in combining the two distinct prohibitiona of polytheif:i»i and idolatrj", and in separatinR- the particulars, posdibly not oriKinol, of the precept a^ainwt coveUmsnesa. The Tulinudic diviuion, which treats the preface a8 the first word, is liable to the objection, not only that it affecU the unity of the cmJe, but that the same formula appears elsewhere aa introduc- tion or conclusion (Lv 18S itfSfi). In view of these objections the GrL-ek-Hefonued division, represented in antiquity by Philo, Jost-phuB, and many Fathers (Orifren, In Ex. HmniJia, 12), is favoured hy the majority of modem critics ^Oehler, Ewald, DelitzBch, Dillmann). See also Nestle in Kxp. T'irncjt, June 1897.
The ong^inal sequence of the 'words* is disturbed in LXX, where the two conunandments which bear upon the life of tlie family (5 and 7) are brouj^'ht together, and the sixth becomes the eighth. In NT the order is variable, but usually the seventh precedes the sixth (Mk 10l», Ro 18»).
Theclassiflration of the coninmndment« la suggested by theli distribution between two tables. Obviously, they fall Into two groups — (1) the relin'ous n-4), which define certain dutiet which man owes to God ; and (2) the cthiciU (5-10), which define cerl/iin duties which ho owes to his brother man. It has, how- ever, been frequently pointed out that, in the antique nimle ol thought, niial duty was more closely allied to the religious than
• The view that the * torso' waa the original D. Is assailed by Meisner on the ground that the irredurihle niininium of tho words of the lirst table has been 'inundated' by Di [Dfk. p, lo), but it is at least as probable that the vocabulary of Ut wiui enriched by the original l>.
f While the B.C. and Liith. Chnrchea agree in subdividing the probihitious of covetousncss, the foruicr makes o. W protect th' neighbour'i wife, tho latter b^s houae.
582
DECALOGUE
DECALOGUE
to the ethical obligation, and that the first five commandmenta may accordingly be 6uital)ly grouped as precepts of piety, the Luil five as laws of probity.
The precepts of piety, which may fairly be assigned to the flrst table, are on the whole clear. The first, while not un- ambiguously sounding the monotheistic note, at least excludes polytheism from Israel. The second prohibits the worship of the true God under a visible form — idolatry. That the third had an dqually definite aim is probable, and it is a plausible suggestion that its point was directed against the use of God's name in spiritualistic and other magical rites (Smend), though most exegetes make it include various abuses of God's name — as perjury, lying, cursing, and other forma of profanity. _ In the reasons annexed to the words of this table may be noticed the two remarkable features of c. 2, the profound insight into the law of heredity, and the intimation that the soul of religion is the love of God ; the Deut. grounding of c. 4, which breathes oompassion towards man and Deast ; and the confident assertion tn c. 5 of the doctrine of temporal retribution.
The laws of probity take under their protection human life (a 6), the institution of marriage (o. 7), property (c. 8), and character or reputation (c. 9) ; while c. 10 strikes at the roots of wrong.doing by proscribing the lawless desire. They may be further classified according as they condemn criminality in act (03. 6-8), in word (c. 9), and in thought (c 10).
From this brief sketch of the contents of the D. we may obtain an impression both of its greatness and its limitations. Its first distinction is that within the brief compass of the ten words it lays down the fundamental articles of religion (sovereignty and spirituality of God), and asserts the claims of morality in the chief spheres of human relationship (home, calling, society). Its ethical precepts are the most far-reaching and the most indispensable. It is, again, a further testimony to the moral value of the code that it provided forms capable of re- ceiving a richer and fuller content than that which they originally held. But the sovereign distinc- tion of the 15. lies less in its exhibition of the foundations of religion and of the landmarks of morality, than in its representation of religion and morality as knit together by a vital and indis- soluble bond. The D. is, in brief, the charter of ethical piety, or, in other words, the great