Talk:Ten Commandments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ten Commandments article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

	Ten Commandments was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 7, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed December 24, 2011 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Bible Top‑importance Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Religious texts (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct. Judaism Top‑importance Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity High‑importance Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Religion Mid‑importance Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Philosophy of religion Law High‑importance Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Ancient Near East Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology: Oral tradition Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Matt Katz (15 May 2024). "NYU's mandatory ethics homework for student protesters includes 'The Simpsons,' Wikipedia". Gothamist.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 6.

Open discussion

@potatín5 I’m unclear what the issue is here. I used the source you provided, quoting exclusively from it and you reverted. I have asked specifically that you consult with me on editing my work before deleting. I’m trying to act in good faith here.

The source you quoted said:

a) the definition of the Ten Commandments was “covenant document” b) it cited no sources since 2001 who hold to them being pre-exilic

There is very clearly an academic consensus that the text wasn’t fixed. I’m literally just saying that there were three versions.

Please *in all future cases* consult with me before deleting my edits. IncandescentBliss (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition is more generic and has been longstanding here. Rom-Shiloni's definition is more restricted to its Hebrew Bible context. Take into account that many modern-day Christians do not believe that the Old Testament covenant remains in vogue while still consider the Ten Commandments as an important source for ethical and religious principles. That's why the current definition is preferable. Potatín5 (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The definition should be about what the Ten Commandments are though not what people regard them as today.

Regarding dating, the Oxford article clearly makes the point at the end that there’s a *reason* people are moving in the direction of a later dating. Simply looking at the dates listed in the article makes this clear. He’s not saying there’s three equally present views now. He’s saying there’s three they have been present and one is eclipsing the other two by and large. IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the three versions is an very common topic in the literature. This should not be glossed over.

Edward L. Greenstein, “Decalogue,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Law, ed. Brent A. Strawn (2 vols.; Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 1.164-72. IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things are always defined in relation to what people regard them to be at a specific time. The Ten Commandments are no exception to this rule (see how Merriam-Webster dictionary defines them here).

Regarding dating, the source clearly states that none of the proposed datings can be demonstrated on firm grounds. You are just supposing things that the source never explicitly states in a way that stands close to WP:OR. Potatín5 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging all extended-confirmed editors to the page since January 1 so we can reach a consensus

@Onel5969 @Bammie73 @Drmies @Auric @Hans-Friedrich Tamke @Chaotic Enby IncandescentBliss (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Hi, I was asked by u:IncandescentBliss to take a look at this dispute. I understand that this diff contains the contested changes. There are quite a lot of changes there and it's hard to discuss all of them at the same time. I would suggest discussing them one-by-one, starting from the most important one. Alaexis_¿question? 07:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion and the article are ridiculous. The bible tells the story, God writting with his finger, and then shows what was written. A and take different from the traditional ten commandments… so every editor is jumping thru hopes, taking a sentence here, and pasting it next to another one there, and constructing the story to match what they learned in their religious tradition. This we call neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:7900:212:AD49:A80A:622C:EEAF (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Enumeration of the Ten Commandments

EdwardNathanSchwarz (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Les Dix Commandements" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Les Dix Commandements has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 8 § Les Dix Commandements until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPS

@Z. Patterson: See meta:Requests for comment/Gotquestions and Tektonics. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: I understand now. The user I reverted did not explain in the edit summary why they were removing a source. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

<deleted>

Hebrew spelling/pronunciation

In Hebrew, we say עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדִּבְּרוֹת (aseret haDibrot) not עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים‎ (aseret hadevarim‎) .אבי נ (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shape of the tablets

I looked at all the art/photographs on this page. The appearance of the tablets appears to always be a flat bottom and flat sides but being rounded at the top. I'm curious as to where this appearance originated. Normally, a tablet (as in a notepad) would be flat on all four sides, and a tablet (as in a medicine pill) would be cylindrical.161.11.160.176 (talk) 15:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]