The History of the Short Form of the Tenth Commandment

[Stephan Huller]

Here is a much more recent formulation (important to keep 'up to date' with research):

The commandments of the Decalogue are precisely and concisely formulated and contain a typological number (ten) of commands. As has been noted already, the text of the Decalogue has with time undergone expansion and revision. The process is most conspicuous with respect to the Sabbath. The explanation for the observance of the Sabbath in the Book of Deuteronomy is completely different from that found in the Book of Exodus. The explanation for the observance of the Sabbath in the book of Deuteronomy is completely different from that found in the book of Exodus.25 Other examples of expansions and revisions in the present form of the Decalogue as a whole could be given. The original Decalogue can reconstructed as follows:26

I, the Lord, am your God, you shall have no other gods beside me.
You shall not make for yourself a sculpture image.
You shall not swear falsely by the name of Lord your God.
Remember to keep the Sabbath day.
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

True, there is no uniformity of rhythm here, and the commandments can be divided into three groups according to their length:31 (1) commandments with four stresses or more (the first, the second, the third, the ninth, and the tenth); (2) commandments with three stresses (the fourth and the fifth); (3) commandments with two beats (the sixth, the seventh, and the eighth and tenth). However, there is no reason to view the whole, on this basis, as secondarily and artificially contrived. The length of the sentence and its rhythm depends on its content, and some topics cannot be fully expressed in only two words. Moreover formal heterogeneity itself is no indication of an eclectic and secondary compilation, as certain scholars assume; original collections of sayings of varying length are found in the Bible and in the literature of the ancient Near East.

[25] Since the explanation in the book of Exodus is connected with the creation as found in the priestly tradition (Gen 2:1-3; Exod 31:17) scholars of Wellhausen's school, who view P as late, are forced to assume that the form of the Decalogue in Exodus 20 was later than that of Deuteronomy 5. But as early as 1883, K. Budde (Die Biblische Urgeschichte [Giessen: Ricker, 1883; p 493] sensed that Exod 20:11 reflects an ancient tradition; because of his adherence to Wellhausen's analysis, however, he reversed conclusions and claimed that the late P was influenced by the Decalogue in its explanation of the Sabbath. See my comments in "God the Creator in Gen 1 and in the Prophecy of Second Isaiah," Tarbiz 37 (1968) 109 n. 22. On the explanation of the Sabbath in the book of Deuteronomy, see my Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 222.
[26] For a recent discussion of the problem, see Stamm and Andrew, The Ten Commandments in Recent Research, 18ff. On the deuteronomistic expressions present in the form of the book of Exodus, see my Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, 318 n. 2.
[27] See Greenberg, "Decalogue," Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971), 5:1443-44, and "The Decalogue as Reflected in Biblical Criticism."
[28] The division proposed here between the first and second commandments is found as early as Philo (On the Decalogue, 50ff.) and Josephus (Ant. 3:91-92). Jewish tradition accepted the view that "I the Lord am . . ." (v 2) is the first commandment and vv 3-6 "You shall have no . . ." (on idolatry) constitute the second commandment; see "Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael" (tractate Ba-Hodesh §6; Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael" ed. H. S. Horovitz and I. A. Rabin [Frankfurt, 1931; repr. Jerusalem: Bamberger and Wahrmann, I960]), "Mekhilta of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai" (Mekhilta de-Rabi Shim on ben Yohai. ed. J. N. Epstein and E. Z. Melamed [Jerusalem: Shacare Rahamin]), and other medieval Jewish commentators. Nevertheless, it is possible to find traces of Philo's and Josephus's division in Jewish tradition. Thus, for example, in "Sifrei to Numbers" §1 12a: (Sifre de-ve Ralf: Sifre al Sefer Bammidbar veSifre Zuta, ed. H. S. Horovitz [Leipzig: Fock, 1917] 121): "R. Ishmael says . . . 'Because he has spurned the word of the Lord' [Num 15:31] — who spurned the first commandment as said to Moses by the Great One: I the Lord am your God: you shall have no other gods beside me ." The rabbinic saying " I am' and 'there shall be no' were heard from the mouth of the Great One," may also indicate that these are one commandment; and, to be sure, this tradition is advanced in b. Hor. 8a in the name of a Tanna of R. Ishmael's school (cf. b. Mak. 24a).

The reading of the Decalogue according to the "superior accents" (tcm clywn) divided according to commandments and not according to verses also reflects, in my opinion, the division of Philo and Josephus. With all the many difficulties involved in the development of the accentual tradition of the Decalogue (see M. Breuer, The Aleppo Codex and the Accepted Text of the Bible [Jerusalem: Kook, 1977] 55-66 [Hebrew]), one thing is clear: according the superior accents, v 2 never receives accentuation as the end of a verse, but is a rebz'a or an athnach, which shows that the first commandment included “I am the Lord" and “You shall have no."

According to the plain meaning as well, "I, the Lord, am your God" functions as a subordinate clause to the following prohibition: cf. esp. Judg 6:8-10 ("I, the Lord, am your God. You must not worship the gods of the Amorites"), Hos 13:4, Ps 81:8-10[9- 11]. For the understanding of "I the Lord . . ." in the Decalogue and the meaning of anoki and dni at the beginning of sentences in Akkadian and Semitic inscriptions, see A. Poebel, Das appositionell bestimmte Pronomen der I Pers. Sing, in den west- semi tisc hen Inschriften und im Alten Testament (Assyriological Studies 3; Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1932). Poebel rightly claims that such sentences cannot be interpreted as self-presentation: not "I am the one who led you out" but rather, "I, who led you out, (command you): You shall have," etc. 29 In the version of Deuteronomy, samor 'observe'.
[29] Not interesting enough to duplicate [SH]
[30] The order of these three commandments (murder, adultery, theft) is different in Philo (On the Decalogue, 121ff.; On the Special Laws, 3:8; Who is the Heir, 173), in part of the New Testament (Luke 18:20; Rom 13:9; unlike Matt 19:18-19 and Mark 10:19), in Codex Vaticanus of Deut 5:17-20, and in the Nash Papyrus (see M. Z. Segal, Massoret uBiqqoret [Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1957] 230). In those texts the order is adultery, murder, theft. According to M. Weiss (The Bible from Within: The Method of Total Interpretation [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984] 256-59) this order, which deviates from the MT, preceded Jeremiah, who quoted it in a chiastic manner:

Jer 7:9 Philo, NT, Nash Pap.
theft adultery
murder murder
adultery theft

[31] See G. Fohrer, "Das sogenannte apodiktisch formulierte Recht und der Dekalog," Kerygma und Dogma 11 (1965) 49-74; Einleitung in das Alte Testament (12th ed.; Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1979) 73-74. According to Fohrer and others the original version of "you shall not covet" was longer: "You shall not covet the house of your neighbor." In my opinion, the original form of this commandment was identical to that of the sixth through eighth commandments.





http://books.google.com/books?id=mQJgnE ... 22&f=false
(Moshe Weinfeld Deuteronomy 1991) http://books.google.com/books?id=-oIQAQ ... CCQQ6AEwAQ

I will fill out the important footnotes later I hope.
and another even more recent:

The original Decalogue can reconstructed as follows:

I, the Lord, am your God, you shall have no other gods beside me.
You shall not make for yourself a sculpture image.
You shall not swear falsely by the name of Lord your God.
Remember to keep the Sabbath day.
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

With time, these commandments underwent expansion and revision. Evidence of this process of expansion and revision can be found in the mostly minor variations between the Decalogue in Exodus and in the repetition in Deuteronomy, which is, as its name implies, a second telling. The process is most conspicuous with respect to the Sabbath. The explanation for the observance of the Sabbath in the Book of Deuteronomy is completely different from that found in the Book of Exodus. In Exodus the explanation is connected with creation: “In six days the Lord created the heaven and earth and sea and all that is therein, and on the seventh day he rested” (Exodus 20:11; compare Genesis 2:1–3). In Deuteronomy the explanation for Sabbath observance is connected to Exodus from Egypt: “The seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave.… Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God freed you” (Deuteronomy 5:14–15). Moreover, in Exodus we are told to “remember” the Sabbath day; in Deuteronomy we are told to “observe” the Sabbath day. The Sabbath in Exodus 20 is conceived as a sacral commemoration intended to dramatize God’s resting on this day, whereas in Deuteronomy 5 the Deuteronomy the observance of the Sabbath is seen as historical recollection, “because you were a slave in the land of Egypt. ” [1]

The commandments of the Decalogue are essentially categorical imperatives—of universal validity, above time and independent of circumstances. No punishment is prescribed; no details or definitions are given. These commandments would hardly satisfy the needs of the legislator, the citizen or the courthouse. What kind of theft is treated in the eighth commandment? What would be a thief’s punishment? Does the commandment prohibiting murder apply to a fellow citizen only or to any human being? What kind of work is prohibited on the Sabbath? The Decalogue does not even imply answers to these questions.

These commandments are not intended as concrete legislation, however, but as a formulation of conditions for membership in the community. Any one who does not observe these commandments excludes herself or himself from the community of the faithful. This is the function of the Decalogue. Although the definitions of laws and punishments are given later in various legal codes, this is not the concern of the Decalogue, which simply sets forth God’s demands of his people. The last commandment (against coveting) is instructive in this regard: This is a command that cannot be enforced, and hence is not punishable, by humans. This command concerns the violation of ethics, which can be punished only by God. In other words, this is not law in the plain sense of the word, but the revelation of God’s postulate—and so are the other commands of the Decalogue.

The Ten Commandments are called debarim (words) and not huqim (laws). In rabbinic literature the Ten Commandments are named ‘aseret ha-dibberot (literally, the ten words). Dibber, however, signifies a divine prophetic revelation, as we can see, for example, in Jeremiah 5:13. There we are told of false prophets: “the dibber [the divine word] is not in them.”

In Hebrew, the commandments are formulated in the second person singular, as if they were directed personally to each and every member of the community. Philo, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher of the first century CE, astutely suggested that an individual might evade a command given to a whole group, “since he takes the multitude as a cover for disobedience” [2]

The German scholar Albrecht Alt distinguished between casuistic and apodictic forms of biblical legislation. Casuistic law takes the form “if … then.… ” It specifies a sanction for infraction. Apodictic law is simply assertive: “Thou shalt not …” or “Thou shall.…” Apodictic laws appear in other ancient Near Eastern law codes and seem to have originated in a covenantal ritual in which the king stood before his subjects and imposed upon them their duties.

Likewise the Decalogue. It indeed imposes the obligations of the divine King, who appears personally as it were, before his subjects, and imposes upon them his commandments. It is sometimes claimed that the Decalogue constitutes the epitome of Israelite morality, but there is no basis for such a claim. The Decalogue is not a set of abstract moral rules like those found in other law-corpora such as “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), or “You, too, must defend the stranger” (Deuteronomy 10:19) or “Justice, justice shall you pursue” (Deuteronomy 16:20). The Decalogue is, rather a fundamental list of concrete commands applicable to every Israelite, comprising the essence of God’s demands from his confederates.

The first part of the list expresses the special connection of the people of Israel with their God. This relationship requires connection with their God, an exclusive loyalty (as opposed to the multiple loyalty of idolators), the prohibition of sculptured images and of false swearing by God’s name and the obligation to observe the Sabbath and to honor parents. The second part of the list has a socio-moral character and includes the prohibition of murder, adultery, theft, false witness and coveting of another’s wife and property.

Honoring parents is well suited to serve as a connecting link between the two sets of commandments—those dealing with human-God relations and those dealing with human-human relations—since father and mother belong to a higher authority that must be respected; they are similar to God or a king. An offense against one of these three authorities—God, king or parent—is punishable by death. [3] Philo notes that the first five commandments begin with God, the father and maker of all, and end with parents, who copy God’s nature by begetting living persons. [4] Elsewhere he says that the commandment to honor parents was placed on the borderline between the two sets of five: It is the last of the first set, in which the most sacred injunctions are given; and it adjoins the second set, which contains the duties of human to human. He explains that the reason for this is that parents by their nature stand on the borderline between the mortal and the immortal.[5]

The structure of the Decalogue reveals several unifying features: their short form, the typological number ten and the arrangement into two groups (commandments concerning the individual and God and commandments concerning the individual and his or her neighbor). These features testify to the oneness of the unit. A form and structure of this kind enables the commandments to be engraved on stone tablets and to be learned by heart, this intimates that these commandments compose a set of fundamental conditions that every Israelite was obliged to know and learn.

The Decalogue is different from all the other collections of commandments in the Bible: It is distinguished by incorporating a set of concise basic obligations directed at all members of the Israelite community, connected by a special covenant with God. It is a sort of Israelite creed. In this respect it is similar to the Shema‘ (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord [Yahweh] is our God, the Lord [Yahweh] is one”—Deuteronomy 6:4), [6] a declaration also composed of an easily remembered verse that contains the epitome of the monotheistic idea and serves as an external sign of identification for monotheistic believers. It is no accident that both the Decalogue and the Shema‘ occur close to one another in Deuteronomy and were read together in the Temple.[7]

The Decalogue was solemnly uttered by every faithful Israelite as the God of Israel’s fundamental claim on the congregation of Israel, and it became the epitome of the Israelite moral and religious heritage. That is why, among all the biblical laws, the list of commandments contained in the Decalogue came to be regarded as primary and basic in the establishment of the relationship between God and Israel. Only the Decalogue was heard as directly spoken by God, and accordingly it is the Decalogue that serves as the testimony of the relationship between Israel and its God.

At the dawn of Israelite history, the Decalogue was promulgated in its original short form as the foundation document of the Israelite community, written on two stone tablets, later called “the tablets of the covenant” or “tablets of the testimony.” the tablets functioned as a testimony of Israel’s commitment to observe the commandments inscribed upon them. They were placed in the Ark of the Covenant, which, together with the cherubim, symbolized God’s above. The cherubim were considered the throne on which God sat, and the ark was God’s footstool.

Hittite documents contemporary with Moses’ time indicate that nations used to place their covenant documents at their gods’ feet, that is, at the feet of their divine images. This analogy to covenant practices in those days explains Moses’ breaking of the tablets when he saw the children of Israel worshipping the golden calf.

NOTES:

[1] Leviticus 19 is also based on the Decalogue. The chapter opens with a reference to the fifth, fourth, first and second commandments of the Decalogue: “You shall each fear his mother and his father, and keep my Sabbaths: I the Lord am your God. Do not turn to idols or make molten gods for yourselves: I the Lord am your God” (Leviticus 19:3–4). The references to the Decalogue are chiastic (that is, in reverse order), as is common with quotations from (and references to) other texts. The author opens with the fifth commandment (honoring parents), continues with the fourth (Sabbath) and concludes with the second (idolatry). Even within the sentence, he changes the order of the components: the object precedes the predicate (not “you shall [each] fear his father and mother,” but “[each] his father and mother shall you fear”; and similarly concerning the Sabbath). Even the order of the objects themselves is interchanged (not “his father and mother,” but “his mother and father”). In the continuation of Leviticus 19 are found commandments concerning theft, false witness and oaths (Leviticus 19:13, 16) and adultery: “Do not degrade your daughter and make her a harlot” (Leviticus 19:29). Like the Decalogue, which opens with the self-presentation of God, thus conferring authority to the laws that follow, the commandments of Leviticus 19 similarly open with “I the Lord am your God” (Leviticus 19:2); this formula is repeatedly affixed to various laws of this chapter. Leviticus 19 fills a gap in the Priestly source of the Pentateuch. In contrast to the Deuteronomic source, which repeats the Decalogue as it appears in the Book of Exodus, the Decalogue is not found in the Priestly legislation, even though it explicitly declares that it transmits the laws and rules given by the Lord “through Moses on Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelite people” (Leviticus 26:46; compare Leviticus 27:34). The absence of any reference to the Decalogue in the Priestly legislation gives the impression that the main point is lacking. Accordingly, Leviticus 19 comes to fill this lack by giving us a “Decalogue” in a reworked and expanded form of its own. While Leviticus 19 is based on the Decalogue, it is distinctly different. It contains many other laws, most of which are contingent on special circumstances to which they apply. It also includes laws that appeal to conscience, as well as ritual laws.
[2] Philo, On the Decalogue 30.
[3] Compare the curse of God and king in the Naboth story (1 Kings 21) and the curse of father and mother in Exodus 21:15, 17.
[4] Philo, On the Decalogue 61.
[5] Philo, On the Decalogue 107.
[6] The full Shema‘ consists of Deuteronomy 6:49, 11:13–21 and Numbers 15:37–41.
[7] Mishnah, Tamid 5:1



Source:
http://theophyle.wordpress.com
Author:
Theophyle
Original Date:
July 3, 2009
Book:
BCE Articles from Theophyle's English Blog - The Patriarchal Stories
SortOrder:
221

So it would appear that Clement's gospel's reference to Jesus declaring that he said 'do not commit adultery' and also 'do not lust' fits perfectly within the assumption that both Clement, Paul and the gospel writer (assuming they are separate people) knew the existence of monuments with the short form of these commandments. This makes clear the unspoken truth (apparently ignored by the Church Fathers) that one could be 'pro-ten commandments' and 'antinomian' owing to the rejection of the Pentateuch specifically (i.e. the Torah of Moses) but 'for' the monumental form of the ten words. Got to run to work ...

[Stephan Huller]

So according to the esteemed authority Moshe Weinfeldhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Weinfeld the variant tradition of Philo, Luke (= Marcion) and Josephus read:

I, the Lord, am your God, you shall have no other gods beside me.
You shall not make for yourself a sculpture image.
You shall not swear falsely by the name of Lord your God.
Remember to keep the Sabbath day.
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not murder
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

But I think a careful reading of Philo shortens the list even further:

I, the Lord, am your God, you shall have no other gods beside me.
You shall not make for yourself a sculpture image.
You shall not swear falsely by the name of Lord your God.
Remember to keep the Sabbath day.
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not murder
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness
You shall not covet.

Then combing through the gospel can we not argue for the further shortening:

I, the Lord, am your God,
You shall not make for yourself a sculpture image.
You shall not swear (= Matt 5:34)
Keep the Sabbath.
Honor your father
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not murder
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness
You shall not covet.

Still working on making this literally 10 (Hebrew) words ...

[Stephan Huller]

Arguably the short form is preserved in Mark chapter 7:

And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’[d] and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’[e] 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Not so sure thought that this is the last word.

[Stephan Huller]

I wonder if all the four commandments in the first tablet hang off of "I am Yahweh Elohim"

i.e.
You shall not make (= Yahweh Elohim)
You shall not swear (by Yahweh Elohim)
Keep the Sabbath
Honor your father (= Yahweh Elohim)

The reason I say this is the 3 assumes the divine name and 2 must have existed in a time where Asherim were made but not representations of the male hypostasis. Still thinking.

[Stephan Huller]

My attempt to synthesize it down to ten words:

1. I am Yahweh Elohim
2. לֹֽ֣א תַֽעֲשֶׂ֨ה (do not make)
3. לֹא תִשָּׂא (do not take)
4. שָׁמוֹר (guard)
5. כַּבֵּד (honor)

6. לֹא תִנְאָף (not adulterate)
7. לֹא תִרְצָח (not murder)
8. לֹא תִגְנֹב (not steal)
9. לֹא-תַעֲנֶה (not false-witness)
10. לֹא תַחְמֹד (not covet)

Just a first attempt, just a guess. But the idea is an expansion on Philo's idea that the first five pertain to God and the last five to humanity.

[Stephan Huller]

More information, now about Mark's use of the short form of the ten commandments:

The first example is an apophthegma/chreia about a rich man asking for the way to attain the eternal life. In my opinion this tradition belongs to the oldest stratum of the Gospel traditions mainly because of its characteristic “ethos”: harsh judgment on wealth, empathy for the poor and the rigid demand to discard all things to follow Jesus. In v.19 the second half of the Decalogue is quoted. It is not a secondary insertion into the original tradition, because this quotation is indispensable in the entire ow of the dialogue. Only the last part of the citation—“Honor your father and mother”— could have been redactionally added (i.e., inserted by Mark) because it seems to form a contextual link to Mk 10:29f. (“there is no one who has left ... mother or father for my sake or for the sake of the gospel ....”).

This means that this tradition, with the exception of a few words just mentioned, is most probably a Greek translation from the Aramaic original. Interestingly enough, the Greek wording of the Decalogue cited here is quite diferent from that of the LXX. The LXX seems to translate לֹא + imperfect of the Hebrew original (both Exod and Deut) verbally as “οu + futurum”, whereas Mk 10:19, obviously emphasizing the imperative intention of the Hebrew original, changes the grammatical construction itself and creates a series of purely imperative sentences (μ + subj.). Only the sentence “Honor your father and mother,” which is a positive imperative and is probably redactional as mentioned above, is exactly the same as the wording of Exod 20:12 LXX. The order of the commandments of the pre-Markan text, when compared with that of the LXX, is also interesting. The Markan order is principally the same as that in the MT (Exod and Deut):

“Do not murder” 6th Comm. according to the MT
“Do not commit adultery” 7th Comm. according to the MT
“Do not steal” 8th Comm. according to the MT
“Do not bear false witness” 9th Comm. according to the MT
“Do not defraud (= Do not covet)” 10th Comm. according to the MT

It is a well-known fact that the LXX has a diferent order in the so-called second tablet: Exodus 20:13ff LXX shows 7th, 8th, 6th, 9th, 10th, and Deut 5:17f. shows 7th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th. That is, both the Exodus version and Mt 19:18 changes this Markan trait back to the LXX style:ο + futurum. That is both the Exodus version and the Deuteronomy version arrange the commandment “Do not commit adultery.” Without going into the details of the differences between the MT and LXX concerning the Decalogue, the two traits mentioned above concerning the text in Mark show that the pre-Markan Greek text most probably does not depend upon the LXX that we know. http://books.google.com/books?id=6fgxAQ ... th&f=false

[Stephan Huller]

1 . "You have heard that it was said."
2. An ancient commandment.
3. "But I say to you."
4. A word of Jesus.

The apparent function of this form of statement is to contrast a word of Jesus with an ancient commandment. Three of the six antitheses include quotations from the ten commandments: You have heard that it was said, do not murder; but I say, do not be angry. You have heard, do not commit adultery; I say, do not lust. You have heard, do not commit perjury; I say, do not be insincere. In each case there is a reference to one of the Ten Commandments, and in each case Jesus makes his word antithetical to that of Moses. Matthew does not present Jesus as a follower of Moses nor as a Pharisaic interpreter of Torah. To Matthew, Jesus is the Messiah, and as Messiah he is here giving the authoritative interpretation of Torah. In this light his authority as lawgiver outranks that of Moses. Jesus as Messiah is the new Moses giving the messianic Torah. But Jesus as Messiah has not come to abolish Torah but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17). That definition seems fundamental for Matthew. For him, the Torah, originally given by Moses, has been deepened and intensified by Jesus, its final interpreter. It prohibits anger, lust, and insincerity, as well as retaliation and hatred of one's enemies. The life demanded by the messianic Torah is usually designated as the higher righteousness, a degree of obedience that exceeds that of the Pharisees. It is both deeper and more intensive than that which can be found in the best of Judaism. Matthew brings his book to a conclusion with a final presentation of Jesus as the new lawgiver. At the end, the risen Christ appears to his disciples on a mountain in Galilee and says to them: Go and baptize Gentiles, teaching them to obey my commandments.39 Although he emphasizes the newness of Jesus, Matthew sees him in the Matthew sees him in the light of the old. [Joseph Tyson A Study of Early Christianity p. 202 http://books.google.com/books?id=qYuR7d ... CB0Q6AEwAA]

[Stephan Huller]

I am beginning to make sense of the gospel. It is clearly a manifesto of the 'only ten commandments come from heaven (= God)' a point of view which was shared by Philo. Illustration 1:

So much for the first and diviner pentad ).(= the two tablets represent not only (1 = laws about God 2 = laws about man hence Jesus's treatment of only 2 in the gospel with 'love one another') but 1 is superior to 2 The second group, of prohibitions, begins with the sin of adultery as the greatest of crimes. Its source is the love of pleasure, and it necessitates a partnership of teacher and disciple in sin. Not only the body but also the soul of the adulteress is alienated from her husband. By this sin, all the more deadly because it is secret, untold evils are produced. The innocent children of such illicit unions are absolutely destitute of parent or parents.

The second commandment of this group forbids murder. Man is pre-eminently a sociable and gregarious animal, and the manslayer therefore breaks the law of nature. Further, the murderer is guilty of sacrilege as having despoiled the most sacred of God's possessions, since man in virtue of his soul is akin to the heaven and, as most believe, to the Father of all.

The third (i.e. the eighth) commandment is directed against the thief, who is the public enemy of any city. Some, the greater thieves, dignify their crimes with the titles of sovereignty. Such a tendency should be nipped in the bud, for a habit long indulged is stronger than nature.

False witnesses are condemned in the fourth (i.e. the ninth) as guilty of many grievous offences. First, they corrupt truth, man's most sacred possession. Secondly, they co-operate with wrongdoers. Thirdly, they defeat the ends of justice and mislead the judges.

Last of all, covetousness is forbidden. This is the most grievous disease which the soul can suffer; for the covetous man endures the tortures of Tantalus, ever yearning for the unattainable; and it is the source of all the ills of mankind.

These ten words are summaries of all the laws. For example, the fourth commandment, which deals with the observance of the seventh day, sets forth the principle which regulates all the feasts, including the so-called Passover, when the whole nation dispenses with the priests and on one day in the year celebrates its own sacrifice.

Such, then, are the laws which God himself proclaimed in person (= i.e. the ten commandments); whereas the particular applications of these general principles were delivered through the perfect prophet who was inspired to that end (= Moses). No penalties are attached thereto, since the Lord is good and is to be considered as causing no evil but only good. Yet sinners are not thus promised immunity: God knew that his assessor, Justice, who watches human affairs, would not rest, being naturally a hater of evil, but would welcome as a kindred function the punishment of offenders. The great King is charged with the common well-being, while his underlings take vengeance of sinners. Indeed God is the prince of peace, his servants chieftains of war.

Why hasn't anyone else noticed this before? Even Heschel never bothered to see if Philo was a spokesperson for this tradition. Now we see he is. In other words, Philo does not believe that the narrative Torah is holy to the same degree as the ten commandments. The ten commandments came directly from God. This is what the Samaritans to this day believe. God literally wrote the text with his finger in fire. When the earliest Jews celebrated the 'giving of the Law' they weren't talking about the five books of Moses but the ten commandments. Akiva was full of shit and most of the Jewish exegetes are equally misguided.

Now at last we can turn our attention to why Mark chapter 10 and the Diatessaronic tradition (see Petersen) and Secret Mark has this discussion of the law before the ritual death (and resurrection) of the disciple. I will spoil the conclusion for you - it has to do with Philo's statement here (= "last of all, covetousness is forbidden. This is the most grievous disease which the soul can suffer; for the covetous man endures the tortures of Tantalus, ever yearning for the unattainable; and it is the source of all the ills of mankind"). More later ...

[Stephan Huller]

Once you start to see the underlying fabric of the narrative with respect to the sanctity of only the 'ten commandments' and Jesus as Ishu (Deut 4:36) the god who originally gave the ten commandments to Moses from the fire while another 'God' spoke from heaven. The central (artificial) purpose of Clement's gospel/the Diatessaronic text becomes obvious - the end of the sacrificial religion was justified by the inherent inferiority/falseness of Moses's revelation.

[perseusomega9]

Now at last we can turn our attention to why Mark chapter 10 and the Diatessaronic tradition (see Petersen) and Secret Mark has this discussion of the law before the ritual death (and resurrection) of the disciple. I will spoil the conclusion for you - it has to do with Philo's statement here (= "last of all, covetousness is forbidden. This is the most grievous disease which the soul can suffer; for the covetous man endures the tortures of Tantalus, ever yearning for the unattainable; and it is the source of all the ills of mankind"). More later ...

In reference to those who will be first must be last? Tom Dykstra (Mark, the Canonizer of Paul) has that as referring to Paul over the 12. But he also brings up an interesting point in that Mark is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but it never gets around to saying just what the gospel is other than pointing back to the 10 commandments as you just covered, to get the gospel, you have to go to Paul's epistles.