Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
|
See also:DECALOGUE (in patristic Gr. 7] SercaXoyos, sc. (3i(3)tos or vopoGevia)
, another name for the biblical Ten Commandments, in See also:Hebrew the Ten Words (Deut. iv
.
13, X
.
4; Ex. xxxiv
.
28), written by See also:God on the two tables of See also: 27 sqq.) or, according to another view, by God himself (Dent. iv . 13, ix . 10) . They were deposited in the See also:Ark (Ex. See also:xxv . 21; 1 See also:Kings viii . 9) . In See also:Deuteronomy the inscription on these tables, which is briefly called the covenant (iv . 13), is expressly identified with the words spoken by See also:Jehovah (Yahweh) out of the midst of the See also:fire at Mt . See also:Sinai or See also:Horeb (according to the Deuteronomic tradition), in the ears of the whole See also:people on the " See also:day of the See also:assembly," and rehearsedin v . 6-21 . In the narrative of See also:Exodus the relation of the "ten words " of xxxiv, to the words spoken from Sinai, xx . 2-17, is not so clearly indicated, and it is generally agreed that the See also:Pentateuch presents divergent and irreconcilable views of the Sinaitic covenant .
As regards the See also:Decalogue, as usually understood, and embodied in the parallel passages in Ex. xx. and Deut. v., certain preliminary points of detail have to be noticed
.
The See also:variations in the parallel texts are partly verbal, partly stylistic (e.g
.
" Remember the See also:Sabbath day," Ex.; but " observe," &c., Deut.), and partly consist of amplifications or divergent explanations
.
Thus the See also:reason assigned for the institution of the Sabbath in Exodus is See also:drawn from the creation, and agrees with Gen. ii
.
3
.
In Deuteronomy the command is based on the See also:duty of humanity to servants and the memory of See also:Egyptian bondage
.
Again, in the tenth commandment, as given in Exodus, " See also:house " means house and See also:household, including the wife and all the particulars which are enumerated in ver
.
17
.
In Deuteronomy, " See also:Thou shalt not covet thy See also:neighbour's wife," comes first, and " house " following in association with See also:
9; See also:Mark x
.
19, A.V.; See also:Luke xviii
.
20; contrast Matt. xix
.
18), and by the " See also:Nash See also:Papyrus." 1 It may be added that the See also:double See also:system of accentuation of the Decalogue in the Hebrew See also:Bible seems to preserve traces of the See also:ancient uncertainty concerning the numeration
.
Divisions of the Decalogue.—The See also:division current in See also:England and See also:Scotland, and generally among the Reformed (Calvinistic) churches and in the Orthodox Eastern See also: 2, is taken as the first " word," and the second embraces verses 3-6 . See further Nestle, Expository Times (1897), p . 427 . The decision between Philo and the See also:Talmud must turn on two questions . Can we take the preface as a See also:separate " word " ? And can we regard the See also:prohibition of polytheism and the prohibition of See also:idolatry as one commandment ? Now, though the Hebrew certainly speaks of ten " words," not of ten " precepts," it is most unlikely that the first word can be different in See also:character from those that follow . But the statement " I am the Lord thy God " is either no See also:precept at all, or only enjoins by implication what is expressly commanded in the ' A Hebrew fragment probably of the and See also:century A.D., in the University Library, See also:Cambridge, containing the Decalogue with several variant readings; see S . A . See also:Cook, Proceed . See also:Soc . Bibl .
See also:Archaeology (1903), pp
.
34-56; F
.
C
.
Burkitt, Jewish Quarterly See also:Review (1903), pp
.
392-408; N
.
See also:Peters, D. alteste Abschrift d. zehn Gebote (1905)
.
2 So, for example, See also:Augustine, i.e., See also: The first precept of the Philonic scheme enjoins monolatry, the second expresses God's spiritual and transcendental nature . Accordingly See also:Kuenen does not deny that the prohibition of images contains an See also:element additional to the precept of monolatry, but, following De See also:Goeje, regards the words from " thou shalt not make unto thyself "•down to " the See also:waters under the See also:earth " as a later insertion in the See also:original Decalogue . Unless this can be made out, the Philonic scheme is clearly best, and as such it is now accepted by most scholars . How were the ten words disposed on the two tables ? The natural arrangement (which is assumed by Philo and See also:Josephus) would be five and five . And this, as Philo recognized, is a division appropriate to the sense of the precepts; for antiquity did not look on piety towards parents as amere precept of probity, part of one's duty towards one's neighbour, . The authority of parents and rulers is viewed in the Old Testament as a delegated divine authority, and the violation of it is akin to See also:blasphemy (cf . Ex. xxi . 17 and Lev. xx . 9 with Lev. xxiv . 15, 16, and See also:note the See also:formula of See also:treason, r Kings xxi . 13) . We have thus five precepts of piety on the first table, and five of probity, in negative See also:form, on the second, an arrangement which is accepted by the best See also:recent writers . But the current view of the Western Church since Augustine has been that the precept to See also:honour parents heads the second table . The only See also:argument of See also:weight in favour of this view is that it makes the amount of See also:writing on the two tables less unequal, while we know that the second table as well as the first was written on both sides (Ex. xxxii . 15) . But we shall presently see that there may be another way out of this difficulty . Date.—It is much disputed what the original See also:compass of the Decalogue was . Did the whole text of Ex. xx . 2-17 stand on the tables of stone ? The See also:answer to this question must start from the reason annexed to the See also:fourth commandment, which is different in Deuteronomy . But the See also:express words " and he added no more," in Dent. v . 22, show that there is no conscious omission by the Deuteronomic See also:speaker of part of the original Decalogue, which cannot therefore have included the reason annexed in Exodus . On the other See also:hand the reason annexed in Deuteronomy is rather a parenetic addition than an original element dropped in Exodus . Thus the original fourth commandment was simply " Remember the Sabbath day to keep it See also:holy." i When this is granted it must appear not improbable that the elucidations of other commandments may not have stood on the tables, and that Nos . 6-9 have survived in their original form . Thus in the second commandment, " Thou shalt not bow down to any visible form," &c., is a sort of explanatory addition to the precept " Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image." And so the promise attached to the fifth commandment was probably not on the tables, and the tenth commandment may have simply been, " Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house," which includes all that is expressed in the following clauses . Such a view gets over the difficulty arising from the unequal length of the two halves of the Decalogue . It is quite another question whether there is any idea in the Decalogue which can be, as old as Moses . It is urged by many critics that Moses cannot have prohibited the See also:worship of Yahweh by images; for the subsequent See also:history shows us a descendant of Moses as See also:priest in the idolatrous See also:sanctuary of See also:Dan . There were See also:teraphim in See also:David's house, and the worship of Yahweh under the image of a See also:calf was the See also:state See also:religion of the See also:kingdom of See also:Ephraim . Even Moses himself is said to have made a brazen See also:serpent which, down to See also:Hezekiah's See also:time, continued to be worshipped at See also:Jerusalem . It is argued from these facts that image-worship went on unchallenged, and that this would not have been possible had Moses forbidden it . The argument is supported by others of See also:great cogency . Although the See also:literary problems of 'the chapters which narrate the See also:law-giving on Mt . Sinai are extremelyintricate, it is generally agreed that Ex. xx, cannot be ascribed to the 1 It is generally assumed that the addition in Exodus is from a hand akin to Gen. ii . 2 sqq . ; Ex. xxxi . 17 (P.).See also:oldest source, and if, in accordance with many critics, this See also:chapter is ascribed to the Elohist or Ephraimite school, its See also:incorporation can scarcely be older than the See also:middle of the 8th century, and is probably later .. With this, the condemnation of adultery in Gen. xx . 1-17 (contrast xii . 10-20, See also:xxvi . 6-11) is in See also:harmony, and the prohibition of the worship of the heavenly bodies is aimed at a form of idolatry which is frequently alluded to in the times of the later kings . The lofty See also:ethics (e.g. tenth commandment) is in itself no See also:sound criterion, whilst the See also:external form of the See also:laws, though characteristic of later codes, need not be taken as See also:evidence of importance . But the See also:general result of a study of the Decalogue as a whole, in connexion with Israelite See also:political history and religion, strongly supports, in fact demands, a See also:post-See also:Mosaic origin,, and See also:modern See also:criticism is chiefly divided only as to the approximate date to which it is to be ascribed . The time of See also:Manasseh (cf. especially its contact with See also:Micah vi . 6-8) has found many adherents, but an earlier See also:period, about 750 B.C . (time of See also:Amos and See also:Hosea), is often held to satisfy the See also:main conditions; the former, however, is probably nearer the mark . The Decalogue of Exodus xxxiv.—In the See also:book of Exodus the words written on the tables of stone are nowhere expressly identified with the ten commandments of See also:chap. xx . In xxv . 16, xxxi . 18, xxxii . 15, we simply read of " the testimony " inscribed on the tables, and it seems to be assumed that its contents must be already known to the reader . The expression " ten words " first occurs in xxxiv . 28, in a passage which relates the restoration of the tables after they had been broken . But these " ten words " are called " the words of the covenant," and so can hardly be different from the words mentioned in the preceding See also:verse as those. in accordance wherewith the covenant was made with See also:Israel . And again, the words of ver . 27 are necessarily the commandments which immediately precede in vv . 12-26 . Accordingly many recent critics have sought to show that Ex. xxxiv . 12-26 contains just ten precepts forming a second decalogue.2 These consist not of precepts of social morality, but of several laws of religious observance closely corresponding to the religious and See also:ritual precepts of Ex. xxi.–See also:xxiii . The number ten is not clearly made. out, and the individual precepts are somewhat variously assigned . They prohibit (1) the worship of other gods, (2) the making of molten images; they ordain (3) the observance of the feast of unleavened See also:bread, (4) the feast of See also:weeks, (5) the feast of ingathering at the end of the See also:year, and (6) the seventh-day See also:rest; to Yahweh belong (7) the firstlings, and (8) the first-fruits of the See also:land; they forbid also (9) the offering of the See also:blood of See also:sacrifice with See also:leaven, (to) the leaving-over of the See also:fat of a feast until the See also:morning, and (II) the seething of a kid in its See also:mother's See also:milk . This scheme ignores the command to appear thrice in the year before Yahweh which recapitulates Nos . 3-5, and the See also:decade is obtained by omitting No . 6, which some hold to be out of See also:place . Others include " none shall appear before me empty-handed " (xxxiv . 2o), and unite Nos . 4-5, 9 and to . C . F . See also:Kent (Beginnings of Heb . Hist. pp . 183 sqq.) obtains a decalogue from scattered precepts in Ex. xx.–xxiii., which corresponds with Nos . 2, 7, 6, 3 and 5 (in one), 9 and to (in one), 11 above, and adds (a) the See also:building of an See also:altar of earth (xx . 24), (b) offering from the See also:harvest and See also:wine-See also:press (xxii . 29), (c) firstlings of animals (xxii . 29 sqq.; cf . No . 7, and xxxiv . 19); (d) prohibition against eating torn flesh (xxii . 31).3 The so-called Yahwist Decalogue in xxxiv. presupposes a rather more See also:primitive See also:stage in society, partly nomadic and partly agricultural; No . 6 is suitable only for agriculturists and cannot have originated among nomads . The whole may be summed up in a See also:sentence:—" Worship Yahweh and Yahweh alone, without images, let the worship be See also:simple and in See also:accord with the old usage; forbear to introduce the practices of your Canaanitish neighbours " (Harper) . It would seem to represent more precisely a Judaean standpoint (cf. the simpler customs of the See also:Rechabites, q.v.) . 2 So See also:Hitzig (Ostern find Pfingsten See also:im zweiten Dekalog, See also:Heidelberg, 1838), independently of a previous See also:suggestion of See also:Goethe in 1783, who in turn appears to have been anticipated by an early See also:Greek writer (Nestle, Zeit. See also:fur alt-test . Wissenschaft (1904), pp . 134 sqq.) . 3 See also W . E . See also:Barnes, Journ Theol . See also:Stud . (1905), pp . 557-563 . If such a system of precepts was ever viewed as the basis of the covenant with Israel, it must belong to a far earlier stage of religious development than that of Ex. xx . This is recognized by See also:Wellhausen, who says that our decalogue stands to that of Ex. xxxiv. as Amos stood to his contemporaries, whose whole religion See also:lay in the observance of sacred feasts . To those accustomed to look on the Ten Words written on the tables of stone as the very See also:foundation of the Mosaic law, it is hard to realize that in ancient Israel there were two opinions as to what these " Words " were . The See also:hypothesis that Ex. xxxiv . 10-26 origin-ally stood in a different connexion, and was misplaced at some stage in the redaction of the See also:Hexateuch, does not help us, since it would still have to be admitted that the editor to whom we owed the See also:present form of the chapter identified this little See also:code of religious observances with the Ten Words . Were this the case the editor, to quote Wellhausen, " introduced the most serious See also:internal See also:contradiction found in the Old Testament." I The Decalogue in Christian See also:Theology.—Following the New Testament, in which the " commandments " summed up in the law of love are identified with the precepts of the Decalogue (Mark x . 19; Rom. xiii. g; cf . Mark xii . 28 ff.), the ancient Church emphasized the permanent See also:obligation of the ten commandments as a See also:summary of natural in contradistinction to ceremonial precepts, though the observance of .the Sabbath was to be taken in a spiritual sense (Augustine, De spiritu et litera, xiv.; See also:Jerome, De celebratione Paschae) . The See also:medieval theologians followed in the same See also:line, recognizing all the precepts of the Decalogue as moral precepts de lege naturae, though the law of the Sabbath is not of the law of nature, in so far as it prescribes a determinate day of rest (Thomas, summa, Ims IId~, qu. c. art . 3; See also:Duns, Super sententias, See also:lib. iii. dist . 37) . The most important medieval exposition of the Decalogue is that of Nicolaus de See also:Lyra; and the 15th century, in which the Decalogue acquired See also:special importance in the See also:confessional, was prolific in See also:treatises on the subject (See also:Antoninus of See also:Florence, See also:Gerson, &c.) . Important theological controversies on the Decalogue begin with the See also:Reformation . The question between the Lutheran (Augustinian) and Reformed (Phioric) division of the ten commandments was mixed up with controversy as to the See also:legitimacy of sacred images not designed to be worshipped . The Reformed theologians took the stricter view . The identity of the Decalogue with the eternal law of nature was maintained in both churches, but it was an open question whether the Decalogue, as such (that is, as a law given by Moses to the Israelites), is of perpetual obligation . The Socinians, on the other hand, regarded the Decalogue as abrogated by the more perfect law of See also:Christ; and this view, especially in the shape that the Decalogue is a See also:civil and not a moral law (J . D . See also:Michaelis), was the current one in the period of 18th-century See also:rationalism . The distinction of a permanent and a transitory element in the law of the Sabbath is found, not only in See also:Luther and See also:Melanchthon, but in See also:Calvin and other theologians of the Reformed church . The main controversy which arose on the basis of this distinction was whether the See also:prescription of one day in seven is of permanent obligation . It was admitted that such obligation must be not natural but See also:positive; but it was argued by the stricter Calvinistic divines that the proportion of one in seven is agreeable to nature, based on the order of creation in six days, and in no way specially connected with anything Jewish . Hence it was regarded as a universal positive law of God . But those who maintained the opposite view were not excluded from the number of the orthodox . The laxer conception found a place in the Cocceian school .
1 The last three sentences of this See also:paragraph are taken almost bodily from See also:Robertson See also: |
|
|
[back] COUNT CHARLES MATHIEU ISIDORE DECAEN (1769-1832) |
[next] ALEXANDRE GABRIEL DECAMPS (1803–1860) |
There are no comments yet for this article.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.
Links to articles and home page are encouraged.