Thursday, October 23, 2025

The Late-Origin of the Decalogue: Rethinking the Date and Context of the Ten Commandments



Christian tradition holds that the Ten Commandments (the “Decalogue”) were delivered by Moses around 1400 BC or thereabouts. Yet many biblical scholars argue that the evidence points to a much later origin. Below is further sources and expert commentary, followed by expanded background material.


---

Christian tradition places the Ten Commandments in the age of Moses, roughly 1400 BC (give or take a century). However, biblical scholarship views this as highly unlikely.

1. The archaeological and epigraphic record offers little to no evidence of a distinct Israelite community, in the sense portrayed in the Exodus narrative, prior to around 1200 BC.


2. At the supposed time of Moses, Hebrew writing (in the form used later in the Israelite tradition) either did not yet exist or was extremely limited in use.


3. Archaeological study and historical records do not substantiate a large-scale enslavement of Israelites in Egypt, a dramatic mass exodus, followed by a swift military conquest of Canaan during the era traditionally assigned to Joshua, Caleb and Moses.


4. Within the Hebrew Bible itself there are three distinct versions of the Decalogue (for example in Exodus 20; Exodus 34; Deuteronomy 5), which suggests the text was not the fixed early-Sinai revelation that tradition assumes. 



If the Ten Commandments were not composed circa 1400 BC, when were they written? According to recent research (notably by Yonatan Adler), the wider observance of laws associated with the Torah (including prohibitions on graven images or certain dietary laws) only became evident in Judea by the mid-second century BC, under the Hasmonean era. 

Adler’s method, for instance, looks at when practices such as ritual purity (immersions, chalk vessels), avoidance of figurative imagery, and dietary habits begin to show up reliably in the material record of Judean society. He argues that such elements do not become widespread until the second century BC. 

In short: rather than a Mosaic revelation in the Late Bronze Age, key elements of what we think of as Yahwistic legal-religious practice may have been constructed or at least institutionalised in the Hellenistic/Hasmonean period (ca 2nd century BC). Adler’s book gives a careful survey of the evidence. 


---

Expert Quotes

“The archaeological evidence for observance of the laws of the Torah in the daily lives of ordinary Judeans seems to situate the origins of Judaism around the middle of the second century BCE.” — Yonatan Adler (as summarised) 

“Scholars have proposed a range of dates and contexts for the origins of the Decalogue.” — Summary from Wikipedia on the Ten Commandments, noting scholarly options for the date of its composition. 



---

Background on Yonatan Adler

Yonatan Adler is Associate Professor in Archaeology at Ariel University (Israel), and heads its Institute of Archaeology. 

His research focuses on the origins of Judaism as a lived practice, especially ritual purity, law, and the material culture of Judea. 

In his recent work The Origins of Judaism: An Archaeological‑Historical Reappraisal (Yale University Press, 2022) he asks: When did the ancestors of today’s Jews first come to know about the regulations of the Torah, regard them as authoritative law, and put them into daily practice? 

Adler ends up arguing that though the textual tradition of the Torah may have begun earlier, the widespread societal adoption of these laws in Judea only really emerges after the Persian period, into the Hellenistic era (i.e., mid-2nd century BC). 



---

Why Scholars Consider a “Late Origin” for the Decalogue

Here are several interlocking reasons:

1. Three Versions in the Biblical Text
As noted above, the Decalogue appears in at least three different places (Exodus 20; Exodus 34; Deuteronomy 5), with variant wording and emphases. The presence of multiple versions suggests the text was fluid and subject to revision, not a pristine Sinai revelation fixed circa 1400 BC. 


2. Lack of Early Material Evidence for Torah-Law Observance
Archaeological indicators of explicit Torah-law observance (immersion pools, chalk vessels indicating ritual purity, prohibition of figurative art, dietary restrictions) are weak or absent for much of the First Temple, Babylonian and early Second Temple periods, but become clearer in the Hasmonean era. This suggests the normative “Torah way of life” only solidified relatively late. 


3. Challenges of Historical Context
The traditional dating of the Decalogue (in the Late Bronze Age) bumps against historical-archaeological problems: the absence of conclusive evidence for a mass exodus from Egypt, no clear evidence of Hebrew writing of the required sophistication around 1400 BC, and limited evidence for a large Israelite polity at that time. These factors make some scholars sceptical of the traditional date. (See, e.g., survey discussions.) 


4. Literary and Comparative Issues
Some scholars view the Decalogue as part of a broader ancient Near Eastern treaty form or legal typology, and date its composition to a later editorial context (even exilic or post-exilic). For example, in The Ten Commandments: A Short History of an Ancient Text, scholar Michael D. Coogan places the text in one of three possible dating schemes: early, monarchic, or post-exilic. 




---

Implications

If the Decalogue and Torah-law observance were institutionalised later than tradition holds (say, 3rd–2nd century BC rather than 15th century BC), several implications follow:

The narrative of Sinai as a single, foundational moment needs to be reconsidered in light of the data.

The relevance of Moses as the law-giver may be more symbolic/literary than historical (or at least, the form of “Mosaic” law as we have it may reflect later developments).

The idea that the Ten Commandments are the unaltered, divinely given core of Israelite religion becomes harder to sustain without nuance.

For Christian tradition, the moral authority of the Decalogue remains, but its historical-critical background invites reflection on how the text came to be, when and why it was solidified in the Jewish community.

Monday, October 20, 2025

Demons and spirits in Bible, OT view vs NT view

This a deep and fascinating topic — the idea of demons and spirits (Hebrew: shedim, ruḥot, malakhim ra‘im, etc.) develops quite a bit from the Tanakh (Old Testament) to the New Testament, and Jewish interpretations (Orthodox, Karaite, and rabbinic) differ significantly. Let’s break it down clearly:


---

🕎 1. Old Testament / Tanakh View

In the Hebrew Bible, “demons” and “spirits” are not a major focus, and what we would call “demons” today are mostly vague or symbolic.

✡ Key Points:

No explicit Satanic kingdom: There’s no figure ruling a realm of demons. Satan (הַשָּׂטָן, ha-satan) is a title, meaning “the accuser” or “adversary,” often acting under God’s permission (see Job 1–2, Zechariah 3:1–2).

Spirits are under divine control: God sends both good and evil spirits.

1 Samuel 16:14–16 — “an evil spirit from the LORD tormented Saul.”

1 Kings 22:19–23 — a “lying spirit” sent by God to deceive Ahab’s prophets.


“Demons” (Shedim) — appear in a few places, mostly in late writings:

Deuteronomy 32:17: “They sacrificed to demons (shedim), not to God.”

Psalm 106:37: “They sacrificed their sons and daughters to demons.”
These passages reflect idolatrous spirits, not independent devils.


Ghosts / spirits of the dead (Ob / Rephaim):

1 Samuel 28: Saul consults the witch of Endor to summon Samuel’s spirit.

Isaiah 8:19: condemns consulting “the dead on behalf of the living.”



📖 In summary: The Hebrew Bible sees “demons” as idolatrous beings or malevolent spirits, but all under God’s authority — no dualistic war between God and Satan exists.


---

✝ 2. New Testament View

By the time of the New Testament, Jewish and Greco-Roman ideas about spirits had evolved.

✝ Key Points:

Demonic possession becomes central:
Jesus and the apostles frequently cast out demons (daimonia).

Mark 1:34: “He drove out many demons.”

Luke 8:30: the “Legion” of demons.


Demons as fallen angels or evil spirits opposed to God:
This concept is influenced by Second Temple literature (e.g., Book of Enoch, Jubilees) that developed between the Testaments.

Matthew 12:24: “Beelzebub, the prince of demons.”

Luke 10:18: “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.”


Dualism appears: Satan leads a host of rebellious spirits, opposing God’s kingdom and afflicting humans.

Deliverance (exorcism) becomes a sign of divine power.


📖 In summary: The NT sees demons as active evil beings, fallen from God’s service and seeking to corrupt or possess people — a more cosmic conflict between good and evil.


---

🕍 3. Orthodox Jewish View (Rabbinic Tradition)

Rabbinic Judaism (Talmudic and later Orthodox thought) expands the concept of spirits but keeps them firmly under God’s sovereignty.

✡ Key Beliefs:

Shedim (demons) exist — created by God, often during the twilight of the sixth day of creation (Pirkei Avot 5:6).

They are incomplete beings: invisible like angels but physical enough to eat and reproduce (Talmud, Chagigah 16a).


Lilith — a female night demon (mentioned in Isaiah 34:14, developed in Talmud and Alphabet of Ben Sira).

Evil spirits can harm people who neglect Torah, blessings, or ritual purity.

Protection: Mezuzah, Torah study, and mitzvot repel them.

Satan / Yetzer Hara: the “evil inclination” is often identified with the same spiritual adversary; he tests rather than destroys.


🕯 Orthodox stance today: Most regard demons as possible but not central — symbolic of temptation or evil forces, while others treat them as real unseen beings.


---

📜 4. Karaite Jewish View

Karaite Jews reject rabbinic oral tradition, relying only on the written Tanakh.

🕎 Their position:

No Talmudic mythology: Karaites generally deny the existence of literal demons or spirits outside what is plainly written.

Shedim = idols / false gods: In Deut 32:17, Karaites interpret “shedim” as pagan deities, not supernatural entities.

No Lilith, no fallen angels: These come from extra-biblical and rabbinic texts they reject.

Satan: a role or title (“the accuser”), not an independent enemy of God.


📖 In summary: Karaites see “demons” and “evil spirits” as metaphors for false beliefs, corruption, or divine punishment — not real beings opposing God.


---

⚖️ Comparison Summary

View Source Nature of Demons/Spirits Relation to God

Old Testament / Tanakh Hebrew Bible Evil spirits or idols Under God’s control
New Testament Gospels, Acts, Epistles Fallen angels, active evil beings Opposed to God
Orthodox Judaism Talmud, Midrash Real but limited beings; created by God Subordinate to God
Karaite Judaism Scripture only Idols or metaphors, not literal beings No independent existence.

Monday, October 6, 2025

The Androgynous Adam: Biblical Roots of the Gender Spectrum

For centuries, the creation story in Genesis has inspired countless debates about human identity, gender, and divine purpose. Today, as society grows more aware of the diversity of gender experiences — including transgender and nonbinary identities — some theologians and readers are re-examining the earliest chapters of Genesis to ask: What if the Bible’s first human already contained both male and female within one being?

Understanding Transgender Identity

The word transgender refers to a person whose gender identity — their deep internal sense of being male, female, both, neither, or somewhere in between — differs from the sex assigned at birth.
It’s about who you are, not who you’re attracted to.

Many transgender individuals express their identity through social changes (name, pronouns, or appearance), and some through medical steps such as hormone therapy or surgery. But not all do — what unites them is the understanding that gender is a spectrum, not a strict binary.

Adam: Created Male and Female

The book of Genesis 1:27 declares:

> “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”



Some ancient Jewish commentators — and a number of modern theologians — have noted something remarkable here. If Adam was created first, yet already described as “male and female,” this could imply that Adam initially embodied both aspects of humanity in one being — a kind of original androgyny.

When we turn to Genesis 2, we read that God formed Eve from one of Adam’s “ribs.” However, the Hebrew word “tsela” is translated “rib” only twice in the Bible, but “side” nineteen times elsewhere (see Strong’s Concordance). Many scholars therefore suggest that God did not merely remove a bone, but divided Adam’s side, separating the feminine and masculine aspects to create two distinct beings.

As theologian Phyllis Trible and other scholars of Genesis note, this reading supports the idea that “the original human was a whole being — later differentiated into male and female.”

Seth in the Image of Adam — Not God

Later, in Genesis 5:3, we read:

> “Adam fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.”



This subtle shift is significant. Whereas Adam was created in the image of God, Seth — and by extension, all humanity after him — is said to be in the image of Adam. Some interpreters take this to mean that humanity no longer perfectly reflected its original, unified state. The human image had changed — not just spiritually, but possibly even in its physical and psychological balance.

From this perspective, it’s not unreasonable to imagine that Adam and Eve each carried remnants of both male and female traits, hormonally and emotionally. Their descendants, therefore, might express these traits along a continuum — what we now call the gender spectrum.

Faith, Identity, and the Spectrum of Creation

While traditional theology maintains the binary view of male and female, others see Genesis as describing a far more dynamic creation — one that contains diversity, fluidity, and balance. The original Adam may have represented the full range of human potential before being divided, symbolizing the unity of opposites found throughout nature and spirit.

This interpretation doesn’t negate the sacredness of gender; rather, it celebrates all people as reflections of the divine image, each expressing unique aspects of God’s creative design.

Modern understanding of gender diversity — including transgender and nonbinary experiences — may therefore not oppose the biblical story, but rather echo its deeper truth: that humanity is vast, multifaceted, and wondrously made.

As theologian and psychologist Karl Jung once observed, “Each man carries within him the eternal image of woman; each woman carries within her the eternal image of man.”

Perhaps Genesis was telling us that from the very beginning.


---

Read more thoughtful reflections at:
🌐 justicepretorius.blogspot.com
🌐 justicepretoriuscom.wordpress.com

Support the author at: buymeacoffee.com/JusticePretorius