The Real Ten Commandments, by Richard Carrier

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/mad.gif
Will this great philosopher ever get proper recognition??
Forget Moses.......what about Solon and his democratic principles??

Meehowski
Melbourne,Fla.

Good question! The answer, unfortunately, is that in our pro-Christian culture it is unlikely that more than a few of us will have heard of Solon's Ten Commandments as compared to the Mosaic Ten Commandments, let alone give Solon the recognition he deserves. Richard Carrier's The Real Ten Commandments (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html) is a step in the right direction.

--Don--

[tgamble]

when I posted this on another board I got the following response. www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2 (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2)

"Look up this site everyone and know that The Secular Web posts ridiculously poorly researched pages, with out and out LIES! It says the 10 commandments originated with Solon The Athenian who lived in 638 BC! 638 BC! Hello! Moses lived in the 13 century before Christ. Website's like this take for granted that their viewers will not question them, nor research their material, so they feel free to post lies."

Strong words. I was hoping Mr. Carrier or anybody could respond. Forgive my ignorance but is the 13 century BC before Solom lived?

[ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: tgamble ]

[Eutéhène]

Hello,
I am looking for an editorial I've seen on your site, but I do not manage to find it again. I remember it talked about Solon and Moïse, comparing their respective Laws.
Could anyone help me ?

Eutéhène

[-DM-]

You probably have in mind Richard Carrier's The Real Ten Commandments (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2).

--Don--

[Richard Carrier]

Dear me! Didn't either of you actually read the essay? If you had, you would have had a good laugh. For it makes quite a different claim--and the difference is the whole point of the essay! See The Real Ten Commandments (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2). Clearly, my detractor didn't even read the essay he attacks.

[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: Richard Carrier ]

The Real Ten Commandments
By Richard Carrier

I enjoyed reading this article. I have never heard of Solon the Athenian and I will do some of my own research and educate myself. I like Solon's take on the 10 Commandments.
I have made few comments beside them, just some thoughts.


1. Trust good character more than promises.
More than being the important word.

2. Do not speak falsely. Integrity is the word.

3. Do good things. Always! right on!

4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made. You only really make a few friends. Try looking them up when you have troubles, this is when you find out who your real friends are.

5. Learn to obey before you command. Humbleness

6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful. Do not recommend, give them the tools to make own decision.

7. Make reason your supreme commander. Subjective

8. Do not associate with people who do bad things. What happens if your friend does bad things?

9. Honor the gods. Honor God.

10. Have regard for your parents. That seems cold. How about respect? :)

Excellent piece. I agree heartily. Solon started the greatest form of government that we know of, but it was not Democracy it was a Republic! I've heard it called Solon's republic, it's not Solon Democracy. When Ben Franklin was asked right after the creation of the constitution what kind of government we have, he said "you have a republic, if you can keep it." It now seems to be a democracy, thus we've lost the republic, what happened?
A democracy is more like mob rule, where the mass of people can do anything to the minority that they want i.e. put someone in jail with no recourse like Habeas Corpus. In a republic, there are rules that protect the minority people. Thanks for a nice article.

What a well written, logically argued essay. Indeed, these more universal commandments, seem more like good sense guidelines than "Commandments". They would, in my opinion, offend less groups in our intentionally religiously-pluralistic society and could be displayed, I believe, in government buildings, without a violation of the separation of state and church that is essential to the just functioning of our republic.

[Richard Carrier]

Thank you.

[oclibertarianjew]

Carier's essay is thoughtful and well written, with one caveat and one comment:
The ten commandments attributed to Moses are not all bad. I subscribe to # 5,6,8,& 9; i.e., it is not wrong to respect one's parents, murder (the Hebrew is "murder" not "kill") is always wrong, property theft is fundamentally wrong, and lying is not a good policy and is simply wrong when it becomes fraud.
Solon supported and helped institute a constitutional republic; he opposed democracy (along with Aristotle, our Founding Fathers, and me.) Democracy is, at best, morally neutral.

[-DM-]

Thank you for your feedback regarding The Real Ten Commandments (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2) by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/index.shtml). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post (keeping in mind that he is quite busy and it sometimes takes him a week or two to respond).

--

In the meantime, a comment about the "sixth" commandment. That the correct translation of the Hebrew word here is "murder" rather than "kill" is not a certainty, at least not so far as I can tell. Keep in mind that Bible translators are typically experts in the languages involved, and the translators of the KJV, RSV, ASV and some other translations use "kill."

Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Definitions gives the meaning as follows:
1) to murder, slay, kill
1a) (Qal) to murder, slay
1a1) premeditated
1a2) accidental
1a3) as avenger
1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle)"

Strong's Hebrew dictionary gives the meaning of the Hebrew word as follows: "A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er)."

[Note: The "especially" mentioned by Strong doesn't negate that "kill" is also a correct translation. Of course "murder" is the translation preferred by apologists these days, probably because it tends to get "God" and his followers off the hook for all the killing that has been done in "His" name.]

--

It is a similar situation in MT 5:21-22, Jesus is reported as saying: "Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:...." Some translators use "kill" and others use "murder."

Strong's Greek Dictionary gives the meaning here as follows:
kill, do murder, slay.

Thayer's Greek definitions gives the meaning as:
1) to kill, slay, murder
2) to commit murder

--

Thus I don't think that we can be certain that "murder" is meant and "kill" is not. Of course, taking into consideration all of the killing done in the Bible in the name of "God," you might be able to make a case that this commandment is only concerned with the premeditated murder of an Israelite by an Israelite.

Regards,
-Don-

[Westmiller]

It seems that the Hebrew and Greek roots at least refer to the killing of a person (rather than a lower animal or plant). I've occasionally faulted the Commandment for being a proscription for vegetarianism and kindness to germs, which may be invalid.
However, even using the translation to "murder" leaves a huge void in the biblical commentaries as to what actual constitutes the act of murder. Nowhere do I find any discussion of premeditation, justifiable homicide or self-defense. Even if the broad proscription against murder is a correct translation, the merits as a moral guide are vacant in the absence of a more comprehensive definition of the act.
Given the biblical context, murder seems to be a convenient and godly act for God's own ends. If the believer therefore derives an "ends justify the means" stance, the proscription is far from absolute - even meritorious - if the actor's objectives are saintly.

William

[BSM]

In "The Real 10 Commandments" Richard Carrier writes:

"And Solon's selfless creation of the Athenian constitution set the course which led to the rise of the first universal democracy in the United States, and it was to Solon's Athens, not the Bible, that our Founding Fathers looked for guidance in constructing a new State."

I am wondering if Mr. Carrier could suggest a source or sources that might verify his statement. Such information might prove useful in light of the recent hoopla surrounding the 10 Commandments.

Regards,

-BSM

[Richard Carrier]

Originally posted by oclibertarianjew
Carier's essay is thoughtful and well written, with one caveat and one comment:
The ten commandments attributed to Moses are not all bad. I subscribe to # 5,6,8,& 9; i.e., it is not wrong to respect one's parents, murder (the Hebrew is "murder" not "kill") is always wrong, property theft is fundamentally wrong, and lying is not a good policy and is simply wrong when it becomes fraud.
Solon supported and helped institute a constitutional republic; he opposed democracy (along with Aristotle, our Founding Fathers, and me.) Democracy is, at best, morally neutral.

Thanks. Strange how there seems to be a sudden flood of interest in that essay all of a sudden. I've also gotten several emails recently. I agree with you on the caveat, which is why my essay says:

Of the rest, it can be assured that shunning adultery has never contributed to the rise of civil rights and democratic principles (despite much trying, there is no Adultery Amendment). It is naturally regarded as immoral--but then it always has been, by all societies, before and since the time of Moses, for the simple reason that it, like lying, theft, and murder, does harm to others, and thus these commandments are as redundant as they are unprofound. They can be more usefully summed up with just three words: do no harm. These words comprise the first commandment of another Greek moralist whose contribution to society lies at the very heart of modern reality: the founder of scientific medicine, Hippocrates.

P.S. On the vocabulary point, it is already a vexed question in any society what actually distinguishes murder and killing, but the usual (amoral) criterion is: any killing not authorized by the state is murder. With that distinction, the Hebrews clearly mean murder and not kill, for they codify the death penalty for virtually every crime (including all ten commandments), in the very same Old Testament books where the Ten Commandments appear. Ditto for killing animals, as the entire law code centered around routine animal sacrifice (and as for executing people, by stoning them alive, the method required for killing animals is the cruelest imaginable: slashing their throats and watching them squirm to the end).

P.P.S. True republican government would not be invented until after Alexander the Great--with the rise of the great Hellenistic Federations of the 3rd century B.C., which were promptly stamped out of existence by the surrounding monarchies and oligarchies (including the so-called Roman Republic, which was barely such a thing until a century later, at least by comparison), then stamped out at Rome itself by Caesar, never to be revived again until 1776. The Founding Fathers took elements from Solon's and Pericles' Athens, and Rome, and created a novel amalgam, but the spirit behind it is certainly Solonian. However, it is true that Solon checked pure democracy with a property-based hierarchy of eligibility for power, while still granting every member of the polity (except, of course, slaves and women) a vote in electing magistrates and choosing laws put to them (but not the power to put laws to the polity). I suppose that is what you have in mind as being a "republic." And that's fair enough.

[Richard Carrier]

Unfortunately one of the best sources is only a dissertation and thus hard for most people to get a hold of: Carl Richard, The Founding Fathers and the Classics, Vanderbilt, 1988.

No other work puts everything together so neatly. Places to start one's investigation include:

Michael P. Zuckert, The Natural Rights Republic: Studies in the Foundation of the American Political Tradition (1999)

[Zuckert argues that Locke mattered more than the Classics, but he does not dismiss the latter, and his bibliography is useful--and, of course, putting it all on Locke is not much different, since he, too was heavily influenced by ancient thought.]

Allen Jayne, Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy and Theology (1998)

[Demonstrates the real influence of religion on the foundation of our government]

Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1992)

[Ranges widely, but covers the classical influences a bit]

One of my favorite examples of a quote showing the kind of sentiment typical of the Founding Fathers, here concerning the moral of kindness to one's enemies (appearing not only in the Sermon on the Mount but also in Proverbs):

"Those men, whom Jewish and Christian idolaters have abusively called heathen, had much better and clearer ideas of justice and morality than are to be found in the old testament, so far as it is Jewish, or in the new. The answer of Solon on the question, 'Which is the most perfect popular government?' has never been exceeded by any man since his time, as containing a maxim of political morality. 'That', says he, 'where the least injury done to the meanest individual is considered as an insult on the whole constitution'. Solon lived above 500 years before Christ."

-- Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Part 2 (p. 822 of the Library of America edition of his collected works)

Or more simply:

"What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude."

-- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (ibid. p. 568).

[Westmiller]

One consideration I find lacking in the essay, which is certainly consequential in considering the merits of any rules: the proscribed penalties for disobedience.
A ban on "working" on the Sabbath is frivolous in it's own right, but imposing it on penalty of death surely negates any merit it may have for any vague objective of social or religious conformity.
No matter the command, there are just and moral responses to violations: proportionality, just deserts, and restitution.
To overlook that aspect is to overlook a fundamental criteria for evaluating any rule, command or law as just.

[BSM]

Thanks!

That was very helpful. Your mini bibliography may prove useful.
I'm quite busy right now so leisure reading and reseach is hard to fit in.

I'm trying to work my way through "Benjamin Franklin : An American Life" (2003) by Walter Isaacson, and he makes mention of the founding fathers being influenced by the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Of course, Isaacson cites a lot of sources too so there may be another connection once I get the time to get back to the book..

As for Paine, well, I recently had someone tell me that he was not a "founding father" because he never signed the Constitution. Of course, he obviously had a hand in creating the early America but some people (this person in particular) seem to be put off by his religious dissent.

Anyhow, I hope to find a few reputable and less biased sources if possible. Then again, I may be on a fool's mission...

Nonetheless, thanks!

[Bill]

Originally posted by BSM
As for Paine, well, I recently had someone tell me that he was not a "founding father" because he never signed the Constitution. While Thomas Paine was not a signer of either the Declaration of Independence nor of the Constitution, there is still some reason to believe that Paine might have authored the first draft of the Declaration, before it was handed over to Jefferson. (THIS SITE (http://www.thomaspainefound.org/pages/biography.html) includes these words: "Common sense specifically called for a Declaration of Independence. There is a close resemblance in style and tone between these two documents and some scholars believe that Paine is the original author of the first draft of the Declaration of Independence.")

Also on THIS SITE (http://www.thomaspainefound.org/pages/biography.html) is this commentary on Paine's most important writing, from the standpoint of the founding of the United States: In January of 1776 Paine published a pamphlet called Common Sense which laid clear the reasons for independence, that pamphlet was an immediate success. In a land where 9 of 10 people were for some type of reconciliation with England, Paine swayed the popular opinion and made independence palatable to the farmer, the tradesmen the merchant and the statesman. George Washington even admitted that he was convinced of the merits of independence by the pamphlet Common Sense. Over 300,000 copies were printed and Paine donated all of the royalties to the benefit of the soldiers fighting on the Canadian front. No other pamphlet in history had been so successful as common sense in sales and influence, the pamphlet was both a political and a literary achievement. Given the truth of those assertions, is it truly reasonable for anybody to deny that Paine is one of the founding fathers of the United States of America, in spite of his not signing either of the two key founding documents? I don't think so!

== Bill

[BSM]

I remember by grade school history teacher actually say that Paine influenced the founders--this from a Christian school, so I guess there's hope!

Of course, the person I'm discussing this with is a classic example of Ad hominem.

Regardless, thanks for the cites and the links.

-BSM

[peartree]

The essay is an excellently written article.


My reaction to the Christian religious right who are demonstrating about the Ten Commandments display is this:

The first 2 commandments say to place no other god before you
and no graven images.

Thus, all "Christians", by definition, are pagans, since they worship another god, Jesus, and Catholics worship a slew of saints and images.

So if you want the ten commandments displayed in a public secular area, then you have to renounce Christianity.

What specious reasoning do the religionists use to extract themselves from this conundrum?

[Richard Carrier]

I would add to Bill's excellent information the fact that Paine's writing was crucial to maintaining American military and political morale during the Revolution, with his ongoing series The American Crisis. He also held several positions in the American government (interim and constitutional) and was close friends with, and greatly influenced, nearly all the "big wigs" (Jefferson, Washington, Adams, etc.).

[nt4z@bellsouth.net]

For Richard Carrier to call the statement, "The Ten Commanments ar the foundation of wester morality and the American Constitution and government" absurd is the absurdity of absurtities.

Carrier's claim requires us to ignore 400 years of American history before the founding fathers and after the founding fathers. It requires one to ignore the fact that the Bible was the priniciple source of reference for governing guidance throughout this period.

The fact is that the biblical Ten Commandments were regarded as natural law or God's law. The statement of Samuel Adams was typical, "In the supposed state of nature , all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the creator." Adams is named as a father of the American Revolution -and for good reason.

The ten commandments have been and/or are reflected in American law in all the states. Every one of the Biblical Ten Commandments has been encoded into some law.

In 1641 Massachusetts -"If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death." Connecticutt adopted a similar law the following year.
And there are other examples.

Again, each of the Biblical Ten Commandments has been codified.
this ranges from Honoring God to the blue laws to laws against adultery. false witness, coveting, etc.

Any writer who cares to do the research can find law and philosophy from Hamorabi to the Greek and Roman philosophers that make a nifty story but it is the Biblical Ten Commandments that have had the only real influence on Western and American law and society. They were not concocted by Moses but presented by God. The fact that others have similarities would only affirm that the Commandments are "natural." or "God's law."

Hugh

[-DM-]

Hugh:

Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback regarding The Real Ten Commandments (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2) by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/index.shtml). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response from him following this post. And please be patient; I believe that Richard is on vacation at the moment, and he is almost always busy enough that it takes him awhile to respond. In the meantime, a few comments and two questions.

There is a problem inherent in any discussion of the so-called Ten Commandments, and that is that there are several versions in the Bible itself and, in addition, some variation in interpretation of the so-called Ten Commandments between Catholics, Protestants and Jews. Thus, one needs to clarify exactly which version and which interpretation is under discussion. (This is one of the reasons, by the way, that I refer to them as the "so-called" Ten Commandments. The other is that what we refer to as the Ten Commandments are, in their original form, not necessarily ten in number.)

My first question: Which version of the so-called Ten Commandments is it that you have in mind?:
1.) EX 20.2-17: the first set of ["Ten"] Commandments on two stone tablets.
2.) EX 34.12-28: the second set of ["Ten"] Commandments on a new set of two stone tablets (with significant differences from the previous version).
3.) DT 5.6-21: [allegedly] a restating of the #1 set, although there are some minor differences.

Where, exactly, can I or anyone else find any of the following codified into our law?:
1) You shall have no other gods before me.
2) You shall make no graven images.
3) You shall not bow down to any graven image.

-Don-

[beveretti]

The historical record does support your point that "The Ten Commanments are the foundation of western morality and the American Constitution and government".

However, you do not present facts to support that Moses got them from God (although I personally believe this too).

Nor do you make a case for them as "Natural Law" (although I personally believe this also).

I believe scientific cases of fact can and should be made to support your personal beliefs. In this way, some may came to see who would otherwise not come to see.

beveretti

[Beveretti]

Your point : "The fact that the biblical Ten Commandments were/are regarded as natural law or God's law," does not make it so.

Although I too believe it to be God's word, this is no basis for declaring it 'natural law'.

Exchanging strongly held beliefs resolves no facts.

Better to assemble empirically known facts and theories which make testable predictions in support of proposed "natural fact".

I would welcome any thoughts on this matter.

beveretti

[-DM-]

Originally posted by beveretti
The historical record does support your point that "The Ten Commanments are the foundation of western morality and the American Constitution and government".Where can one find the historical records that support this point?

I believe scientific cases of fact can and should be made to support your personal beliefs. In this way, some may came to see who would otherwise not come to see.Agreed. And on this note I am interested in seeing nt4z clarify which version of the so-called Ten Commandments he has in mind and then in seeing him--or anyone else--support his claim that "Every one of the Biblical Ten Commandments has been encoded into some law," particularly where these have been codified into our law:
1) You shall have no other gods before me.
2) You shall make no graven images.
3) You shall not bow down to any graven image.

-Don-

[Hugh Armstrong]

Well, The 10 commandments listed in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deut. 5:6-21 are clearly enumerated as 10 and are considered the decalogue. Exodus 34 gives a synopsis of these commandments and sets up a covenant with Moses which is more braod. When we talk about the 10 Commantments it is the decologue of Exodus 20 and Deut that is the subject of all legal discussion .

The impact of the decologue on American and Western civilization far outweighs that of any other moral code. The imopact was so great that they became known not only as God's law but "natural" law by legal scholars and practitioners. The quote from Samuel Adams is typical:

"In the supposed state of nature, all men are equally
bound by the laws of nature, or to spek more properly,
the laws of the Creator."

As far as specific commandments being incorporated into American law over the years, I invite you to view David Barton's legal brief prepared for the plaintiffs in an ACLU suit brought to tear down a Kentucky display. Barton is recognized as the leading authority on religion in American history.

Here are a few:

Massachusetts 1641: "If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship an other go but the Lord God, he shall be put to death."

Virginia, 1610: "No man shall speak impiously or maliciously agains the holy and blessed Trinity or any of the three persons upon pain of death."

Iowa Supreme Court Ruling 1922: "The observance of Sunday is one of our established customs. It has come down to us from the same Decalogue that prohibited murder, adulter, perjury and theft. ....."


Louisanna 1934 Appeals Court: "'Honor thy father and thy mother is as mujch a command of the muniipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue . . . "

Massachusetts 1641: "If any person shall slay another through guile, either by poisoning or other such devilish practice, he shall be lut to death."

Washington state Supreme Court1955: "Adultery, whether promiscuous or not, violates one of the Ten Commandments and the statutes of this state.


Federal Court 1914: "Bared to nakedness, the facts show that the Rochester Companmy simply coveted and desired its neighbor's properthy, and to make this covetous purpose effective it seeks to violate ..."

New Hampshire 1680 Idolatry law: "It is enacted by ye assembly and ye authority thereof , yet if any person having had the knowledge of the true God openly and manifestly have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death."

Clearly the Decalogue has had an amazing impact on the American judicial system. Over and above that of any other philosphy in history.

Hugh

[Hugh Armstrong]

For my last submission please correct the paragraph with respect to David Barton's research -it was done for the defendant. In this case Harlan County Kentucky. Also his research on the Decalogue in American law may be found at www.moseshand.com/studies/db400yrs.htm

Thankyou, Hugh

[-DM-]

Well, The 10 commandments listed in Exodus 20:2-17 and Deut. 5:6-21 are clearly enumerated as 10 and are considered the decalogue.I know that these are "considered the Decalogue," however, I cannot find "ten" in the above mentioned verses in any of the Bible versions that I use. The only textual mention of either ten "words," or "ten commandments," or "ten matters" (depending on the specific translation) that I have found comes at EX 34.28, at the end of the commandments given in EX 34.12-28--which is not the version normally cited as "The Ten Commandments." Therefore, Please cite chapter and verse to indicate where "ten commandments" (or the equivalent) is specifically mentioned in either of the two versions which you consider the Decalogue.

The impact of the decologue on American and Western civilization far outweighs that of any other moral code.In my opinion, the Ten Commandments are defective as a moral code; the first four have no particular moral value, the others are a bit simplistic, and there is much that is left out. But whether the so-called Ten Commandments are or are not defective, and whether they are or are not the foundation of "western morality and the American Constitution and government," what I want to see is where the specific three commandments that I listed, above, are codified into current law--not the law of the 1600s or statements made by a court. I'm not saying that such is not the case, but inasmuch as nt4z@bellsouth.net made the assertion, it is up to him (or anyone who is interested in doing so) to provide the evidence for that assertion.

-Don-

P.S. I'm hoping that Richard Carrier will soon be back from wherever he is and will be able to offer something with regard to the original feedback and the ensuing discussion.

[Hugh Armstrong]

I think you have it backwards. The assertion in the original piece was that it was "absurd" to state that the Ten Commandments had a greater influence on Western society than earlier philosophies.

I contended that the observation itself was absurd since 400 years of American history needed to be ignored in order to support it. I then showed a sampling of factual inclusion of the Commandments in American jurisprudence.

The nitpicking over the count and numbering of the Commandments won't hold up anywhere that I know. There are 10 rules (count em) that are called the decalogue because of that.
These 10 Commandments are the salient rules of morality taken from a vast amount of Hebrew law. The entire body of law has been fulfilled in Christ.

The Ten Commandments have stood because of their universal moral application.

Now, as for the claim that the first three have no moral value:

Certainly, they have no value to one who has shut himself off from God. But for believers (and this nation was founded by
believers) they offer great direction in man's fulfillment of his
purpose.

As for the others being silly, either of two things need to be believed:

(1). Lusting, lying, cheating, coveting, stealing and murdering are good for society. Or,

(2). Man is so inherently good that he needs no direction in these matters since no evil will ever take place in his affairs.

Since neither is true, the Ten Commandments have given us good moral underpinnings as to what is right and what is wrong and have therefor each, at one time or another, been incorporated not only in Amreican jurisprudence , as I have shown, but that of most Western nations.

The original contention was not mine but I think I have refuted the original claims with facts and logic.

The claim of worthlessness for the Commandments has, and will not, held up in real life. Hugh

[-DM-]

I think you have it backwards. The assertion in the original piece was that it was "absurd" to state that the Ten Commandments had a greater influence on Western society than earlier philosophies.Here is the original statement from nt4z@bellsouth.net again:

--
nt4z@bellsouth.net:

"For Richard Carrier to call the statement, 'The Ten Commanments [sic] ar [sic] the foundation of wester [sic] morality and the American Constitution and government' absurd is the absurdity of absurtities [sic]."
--

In other words, nt4z@bellsouth.net is labeling Richard Carriers statement absurd. nt4z@bellsouth.net is crediting Carrier with the statement that it is absurd to say "The Ten Commnadments [sic] are the foundation of western morality." Of course, Carrier didn't say it that way.

--
Richard Carrier:

"In saying this, people are essentially crediting Moses with the invention of ethics, democracy and civil rights, a claim that is of course absurd."
--

These 10 Commandments are the salient rules of morality taken from a vast amount of Hebrew law.Many of which, it seems, may have been taken from King Hammurabi before that.

The entire body of law has been fulfilled in Christ.This is merely a belief stated as if it were fact.

The Ten Commandments have stood because of their universal moral application.Not to mention the billions of dollars and billions of man-hours that have been spent promoting Christianity.

-Don-

P.S. I'm going to move this to the Moral Foundations & Principles forum in order to facilitate discussion. Inasmuch as you are a registered user, you will be able to participate there as well. If he cares to do so, Richard Carrier will respond there. Keep in mind that Carrier is a historian with a good handle on this matter.

[SiliconWolf]

Originally posted by nt4z@bellsouth.net
The ten commandments have been and/or are reflected in American law in all the states. Every one of the Biblical Ten Commandments has been encoded into some law.

Maybe so, but are these laws still in effect? In many cases, I expect the answer is no.

Originally posted by nt4z@bellsouth.net
In 1641 Massachusetts -"If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death." Connecticutt adopted a similar law the following year.
And there are other examples.

The writers of the Constitution determined that these sort of "Burning Times" laws were not acceptable when they drafted the First Amendment. If anything, these laws caused enough problems that they made the First Amendment necessary.

How can we consider laws that have been repealed or invalidated to be the foundation of our modern legal code?

[lpetrich]

Hugh Armstrong:
I think you have it backwards. The assertion in the original piece was that it was "absurd" to state that the Ten Commandments had a greater influence on Western society than earlier philosophies.

There is much in our systems in government that is NOT derived from the 10C's. The 10C's do not talk about:

Selection of leaders by periodic elections
Legislative assemblies
An independent judiciary
Trial by jury
Freedom of religion
Freedom of speech and of the press
The right to a fair trial
...

In fact, most of our political vocabulary is unbiblical. Are words like "democracy", "republic", "senate", etc. borrowed from Biblical Hebrew?

I then showed a sampling of factual inclusion of the Commandments in American jurisprudence.

Which don't make them fundamental law. You have not shown how the Constitution was derived from the 10C's.

These 10 Commandments are the salient rules of morality taken from a vast amount of Hebrew law.

A medieval-Catholic thing more likely.

The entire body of law has been fulfilled in Christ.

Laws don't get "fulfilled", they get passed and repealed and followed and broken.

The Ten Commandments have stood because of their universal moral application.

As opposed to the rest of the Bible's numerous laws?

And when was the last time someone was executed for working on the Sabbath?

As for forbidding murder and theft and making false accusations (not lying in general), those are rather general sorts of laws that are far from specific to the Bible. Furthermore, there are lots of things commonly considered wicked that are not forbidden in the 10C's, like assault and battery, vandalism (unauthorized alteration or destruction of property), cheating, etc.

"I beat him up but let him live, therefore I'm following the 10C's"
"I scribbled on his car that he's a doodoohead, but I didn't steal it, therefore I'm following the 10C's."
"I lied about my career and my record, but I didn't falsely accuse anyone of anything, therefore I'm following the 10C's."
"I have nothing but contempt for my brothers and sisters, but I honor my father and my mother, therefore I'm following the 10C's."

Furthermore, the 10C's lack any statement of positive goals.

[NearNihil Experience]

"Clearly the Decalogue has had an amazing impact on the American judicial system."

Which is why we have three branches of government...to help prevent the tyranny of the popular majority from squelching the rights of the individual.

"Over and above that of any other philosphy in history."

I'm thinking capitalism has had more of an impact than any "doctrine" on America.
And if that's the case, please present any Biblical passages that would champion taking advantage of your fellow man's labor for profit.

Simple minds live by simple rules...lazy minds live by few.


"Certainly, they have no value to one who has shut himself off from God."

And your willing to impose your rules against me? Without calling yourself a tyrant? You would hide behind the weight of Democracy to help destroy a Republic for the sake of your individual conscience?

" But for believers (and this nation was founded by
believers) they offer great direction in man's fulfillment of his
purpose."

Yes founded by some believers, a variety of believers...on the principle that they were founding something for not just them but for everyone who valued freedom of conscious.

"As for the others being silly, either of two things need to be believed:

(1). Lusting, lying, cheating, coveting, stealing and murdering are good for society. Or,

(2). Man is so inherently good that he needs no direction in these matters since no evil will ever take place in his affairs. "

(1) Depends on whose doing the lying or cheating or murdering...I would say if someone is doing any of those things for national interest, say the President, then it is good for society.
If he's using the nation to pursue his own ionterests, then it is obviously not good for society.

(2) That's stupid. So the exact opposite is stupid too...

... that man is so bad that he needs constant direction in all matters since only evil can take place in his affairs without filtering his actions and thoughts through the 10 C filter.

"Since neither is true,..."
(1) is true for those with spine enough to do the things necessary to get society ahead.

(2) is a false representation, your setting up a strawman...fallacy ad absurdum.

..."the Ten Commandments have given us good moral underpinnings as to what is right and what is wrong and have therefor each, at one time or another, been incorporated not only in Amreican jurisprudence , as I have shown, but that of most Western nations."

Read the new European Charter...You may find it lacks a little something in Biblical authority.


BTW, you only want the Ten C? None of the other good laws in Exodus or Leviticus...? How can you accept only 10 of God's commands as a basis for American Jurisceprudence? After all, slavery is divinely ordeained, need to bring that back with the 10 C...and executing Wiccans...and stoning to death mouthy children and those women who hae been raped in the cities...

And are you willing to bring back the penalties for infractions against the 10C...summary executions or stonings?


And...

the first commandment directly violates the established law of the land in freedom of religion and expression..."Hold no other God's before me." This is not freedom, this is tyranny

"remember the sabbath and keep it holy"...no freedom to not do that...

see where we are going...You are trying to make the country into what you want it to be by destorying it...I'm trying to allow for a country that allows all its citizens the same status and rules to live by...
You're fee to act as you will, but you are not free to override the established tennants of our Country in order to establish a new presedent.

[ZiprHead]

Originally posted by nt4z@bellsouth.net
The fact is that the biblical Ten Commandments were regarded as natural law or God's law. The statement of Samuel Adams was typical, "In the supposed state of nature , all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the creator." Adams is named as a father of the American Revolution -and for good reason.

I thought Thomas Paine was the father of the American revolution.

And what makes you believe that Adams was refering to the Christian god. Sounds very deistic to me.

[dantonac]

For Richard Carrier to call the statement, "The Ten Commanments as the foundation of wester morality and the American Constitution and government" absurd is the absurdity of absurtities.

Catchy leading statement. Let's take a look underneath the hood.

Carrier's claim requires us to ignore 400 years of American history before the founding fathers and after the founding fathers. It requires one to ignore the fact that the Bible was the priniciple source of reference for governing guidance throughout this period.

I am not certain what you mean by 400 years after the founders so I will await your expanding upon this. The 400 years preceding this are irrelevant. The founders wrote a purely secular document in the constitution. You can debate this all you want, but what is the point? The declaration of independance references 'god' in a deistic sense and many of the founders made references to some sort of 'god' or the other. Where do the ten commandments fit into this picture?

The first several commandments occur nowhere in any laws post constitution. Prior to that the land now occupied by the United States was a British colony under the throne so anything you cite from that time period may well apply to the British monarchy, but not the United States.

The fact is that the biblical Ten Commandments were regarded as natural law or God's law. The statement of Samuel Adams was typical, "In the supposed state of nature , all men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the creator." Adams is named as a father of the American Revolution -and for good reason.

The ten commandments may well have been regarded as God's law, but they certainly were not considered natural law. Are you familiar with the natural law theories?

The ten commandments have been and/or are reflected in American law in all the states. Every one of the Biblical Ten Commandments has been encoded into some law.

No, they haven't. Not in the United States. In colonial America? Almost certainly. We had state churches and the murder of people not of the correct belief system. We had people pledging loyalty to the throne too. Is this the period you wish to appeal to? What law has ever been passed for any length of time in the US that reflects any of the first 3 commandments? Shouldn't be too tough for you to provide one, right?

In 1641 Massachusetts -"If any man after legal conviction shall have or worship any other god but the Lord God, he shall be put to death." Connecticutt adopted a similar law the following year.
And there are other examples.

There probably are many more examples. The only problem is that the United States as a nation/government didn't exist then. You said the American government and constitution, not the British throne, remember? Why would you appeal to a time before the US existed as such as proof of what the US constitution or government is based upon? The US government, as per it's constitution did away with these ridiculous laws.

Any writer who cares to do the research can find law and philosophy from Hamorabi to the Greek and Roman philosophers that make a nifty story but it is the Biblical Ten Commandments that have had the only real influence on Western and American law and society.

Yeah, keep the Sabbath holy, have no other gods before me and don't use the lords name in vain have had an obvious and pround effect upon our nation, it's constitution and it's government. No, honestly, I am not laughing. Do you actually believe what you are writing? Where is your evidence? You say it is so, but is it too much for me to ask you to back up your assertions with something resembling a reason why I ought to believe you?

They were not concocted by Moses but presented by God.

Again, what is your proof of this assertion? Fine with me if you choose to believe it, but I require proof before I accept it. What proof or evidence of this can you offer me?

The fact that others have similarities would only affirm that the Commandments are "natural." or "God's law."

Could it possibly mean anything else? I would agree with you that the non "I AM GOD!!! DO WHAT I SAY!!!" commandments are universal or "natural". It is wrong to steal or murder. Well no kidding ;-) So why isn't the "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" commandment natural or universal? Why isn't the Sabbath commandment universal or natural?

[Shake]

Some relevant links, which I'm a bit surprised haven't yet been mentioned, but oh well:

Commandments 5 to 11 (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi2.html)

The 10C are everything the US is NOT! (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/10command.htm)

and of course, there's Carlin's take on the 10C (http://www.geocities.com/bobmelzer/gc10cx.html)

That's all for now.

[Rhaedas]

Pretty sufficient arguments here against the OP. One point:

There probably are many more examples. The only problem is that the United States as a nation/government didn't exist then. You said the American government and constitution, not the British throne, remember? Why would you appeal to a time before the US existed as such as proof of what the US constitution or government is based upon? The US government, as per it's constitution did away with these ridiculous laws.

Let's remember why the United States, Declaration of Independence, and most importantly, the Constitution, were established. One out of the many reasons, but important to this argument, is to create a government that is not tied to a specific religious belief. The separation of church and state, the 1st amendment, the statement that no religious test will be administered to a public official...all for this reason. Not to eliminate religion, but for the government itself to not say what is and isn't acceptable.

The founders were of various beliefs, some indeed christians. But they recognized from their own experiences and those in the past, that a government tied to religion is easily corrupted by that religion, and visa versa. The OP cites laws before the Constitution was created as evidence of christian dogma historically in our nation. I cite the same to show why the founders wrote the religious separation from the state into the Constitution. They were fully aware of the problems associated with religion forced on others by the law of the land...

[Hugh Armstrong]

Just a small point to trash the whole George "dirty words on the radio" Carlin's, surely comedic, claim that the Commandments can be reduced to generalities.

To combine Thou shalt not steal with Thou shalt not bear false witness over simplifies two distinct sins.

Ask your self why wasn't Bill Clinton simply impeached for dishonesty, surely the guy was completely dishonest. The fact is he was impeached for perjury under oath. A distinct charge. He was also accused of stealing other peoples money in the White Water case.-distinct accusations and also dishonesty. He was guilty of adultery -also dishonesty. How many crimes don't involve dishonesty?

With all the nit picking going on concerning details of what the Ten Commandments mean or don't mean, we now want to lump them? Give me a break! Hugh

[ELECTROGOD]

Iowa Supreme Court Ruling 1922: "The observance of Sunday is one of our established customs. It has come down to us from the same Decalogue that prohibited murder, adulter, perjury and theft. ....."

So......even though "god" established Saturdays as his holy day of the week we are required by law to observe Sunday? And how does this direct violation of "god's" law confirm that this is not only part of what "god's" law is but that we should be beholding to it?
Sound like the usual religious followers who don't know the first thing about their own beliefs but feel the need to oppress others with it and then attempt to enforce it as well through stupid laws.
But hey, it was back in 1922 when there was a wee bit less information being exchanged, right? Still doesn't make sense today and certainly doesn't prop up any argument for the validity of a myth and it's funky rules to be part of the laws to govern a diverse nation.

Louisanna 1934 Appeals Court: "'Honor thy father and thy mother is as mujch a command of the muniipal law as it is a part of the Decalogue . . . "

Hmmmm, didn't Jebus say that you must reject your father and mother and follow him (I don't have one of the many modern English language versions of the Bable quote, maybe someone can help me with that one).

And, how come if some of the "laws" of god are included in our government and some people think that we need to follow them then we don't apply ALL of "god's" laws to government law enforcement.......so we don't piss off "god" and get sent to hell to burn for all of eternity for not observing ALL his laws like we should (getting sent to hell would kind of suck just for missing a sunday...or is it really Saturday...which would mean that there are a lot of Christians missing a lot of Saturdays and will, with the same probability that there is a god, be sent to hell without realizing it. I suppose they should also be prosecuted by law enforcement as well since it's in the lawbooks or at least correctly in the Bable which is this country's foundation...as Christians put it).

http://members.aol.com/electrogod/sgod.gif

[braces_for_impact]

If the founding father John Adams is to be considered authority in this matter, let us not forget what he proudly signed into law and declared to the nation in Aticle 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[Richard Carrier]

Perhaps enough has been said here already. But I will interject the most salient points I can personally make, since this was directed originally at me, and some claims I supposedly made.

Originally posted by nt4z@bellsouth.net
For Richard Carrier to call the statement, "The Ten Commanments ar[e] the foundation of wester morality and the American Constitution and government" absurd is the absurdity of absurtities.

Since I didn't say that, it is a wonder so much debate has ensued. This entire thread seems like debating what color of hair Big Foot has.

What my essay really says is: "crediting Moses with the invention of ethics, democracy and civil rights ... is ... absurd" (The Real Ten Commandments (www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2)). No one as far as I can see has challenged me on that point. The rest of my essay then argues only that the man whose "ideas and actions lie far more at the foundation of American government" and whose ethics were more socially significant for that founding, is Solon (italics added here). I never said that Mosaic Law had no influence, nor did I say anything about popular jurisprudence--my context was explicitly and clearly limited to the U.S. Constitution and the most widely embraced contemporary American values. Again, I have not seen any challenge made to my point that Solon's ethics and role in forming the world's first democracy had a greater role in founding our Constitution, or my point that they are more congruous with the contemporary values held most widely in America today. In short, there is nothing here for me to respond to, since nothing here pertains to anything I have actually said.

In other words, I ask that you actually read the essay.

In contrast, what is truly absurd is to say, as you do, that in contrast to the inventor of democracy, Mosaic laws "have had the only real influence on Western and American law and society." That is so patently absurd it is astonishing that any sensible human being would dare assert it. And one brief but adequate refutation of such nonsense is my essay, the one you evidently didn't read.

Incidentally, you might want to stop harvesting out-of-context quotes and actually read some things the Founding Fathers wrote. Since you are fond of quoting him, you seem most in need of reading the very excellent historical treatise by John Adams, History of the Principal Republics in the World: A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1794), in 3 volumes. Please read them, and tell me just how much Moses gets mentioned there, much less the Ten Commandments.

Now, to be sure, I don't want your reading impairment to trip you up again, lest you misread what I am saying yet again: Adams was certainly a god-fearing Christian, and offers much praise in various of his writings for Christian religion. That has no bearing on what I am saying here or what I said in my essay to which you respond. Until you understand what I mean by that, I don't think you will ever be able to produce any relevant response to me or what I have actually written.

But I will close with my own quotation of Adams, from the above mentioned book:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature, and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history....It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture. It will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

Though he credits reason as well as "morality and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests" as helping to sustain America's success, he never once credits any specific principle from that religion (like the Ten Commandments), as lying at the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. The idea isn't even considered. Instead, volume 1 is entirely about the example and influence of Greece and Rome, volume 2 is about that of the secular Italian republics of the Renaissance, and volume 3 that again, and then the precedent of the British Commonwealth. In the words of his reviewer in the August issue of the 1795 American Monthly Review, the authors whom he considers as most influential in his survey are these:

"Particularly among the ancients, Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Dionysius Halicarnassus, Cicero, and Tacitus, among the moderns, of Machiavelli, Sydney, Montesquieu, Harrington, Locke, Milton, Swift, Hume, Franklin, Price and Nedham."

Moses is conspicuous for his absence. Solon, of course, and in contrast, would be represented most significantly in the writings of Aristotle, as well as many of the others, and of course an extensive section in volume 1 is devoted to Solon's Athens. Adams credits the first invention of representative government to Lycurgus of Sparta, and Solon with its improvement. No mention of Moses.

P.S. For the benefit of all, here are some past feedback on this same essay to which I have responded:

30 August 2003 (www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61279)

30 August 2003 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61477)

24 September 2003 (www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=636)

3 April 2003 (www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=286)

[lpetrich]

Thanx, Richard Carrier, for showing up here.

I like your mention of the Renaissance Italian republics; it would be interesting to find out what sort of example they had been to our Founding Fathers. And it's nice to learn that Niccolo Machiavelli had expressed commendable democratic ideals in his Discourses and was not the sort of anything-to-win conniver that is the common image of him. In The Prince, he had simply been describing how to win in politics.

And I marvel at the notion that our system of government has anything to do with the Bible -- they seem almost like two different worlds. The attempts to derive elections from some part about Acts about selecting some people for some task -- that's specious almost beyond belief.

Hugh Armstrong:
Just a small point to trash the whole George "dirty words on the radio" Carlin's, surely comedic, claim that the Commandments can be reduced to generalities.

The 10C's certainly don't specify elected leaders or jury trials or freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

Ask your self why wasn't Bill Clinton simply impeached for dishonesty, surely the guy was completely dishonest. (charges of great evils...)

I wonder why some people hate Bill Clinton so much. What had he ever done to them?

And what would make the Clinton-haters happy? Getting to strangle him with their bare hands?

[Jimmy D]

Good piece and well done. Additionally, there is very good evidence that Moses was an allegorical figure since absolutely no archeological evidence has been discovered, (after over 200 years of searching) to support the idea that such a migration as claimed in the English composed bible actually occurred or that the figure of Moses was based upon a real person.
I share your peeve about the "Ten" and fundies in general. Another peeve of mine is the xtian claim that our country was founded upon christian principles. I enjoy pointing out the egocentric fallaciousness of this self-serving claim. I also enjoy the expression of confussion on the occasional xtian face when I mention ideals of self determination, individual rights and respect for the concept of individual choice upon which the country was actually founded.
Jimmy D

[Richard Carrier]

Thank you for the kind words.

[Atma Advani Sufi]

Why don't you look at the much more older commandements in Hindu and Buddhist books???
All the commandements have been written long before Solon or Mosses were born. Not only written but also practised today to a greater extent than any other religion. For example non-violance. The idea is not who wrote it first but who is practicing today!!!

[-DM-]

[Presumably, your feedback is in response to The Real Ten Commandments (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2) by Richard Carrier (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/index.shtml). Note that "Ten Commandments" by itself does not identify any specific article, and given that we have approximately 8000 articles on the Secular Web, we ask for title and author (see the Feedback FAQ (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/announcement.php?s=&forumid=10)). In any case, Richard Carrier has been notified of your feedback. You might want to check back from time to time for a further response from him. -DM-]

[Richard Carrier]

Why don't you look at the much more older commandements in Hindu and Buddhist books???

I'd be glad to. Just tell me where they are--give me some citations to passages in texts that can be positively dated prior to Solon.

[Shulamit]

this is a reply to Atma Advani Sufi.
As far as i know, Budha lived in th 5th century bc. IF OTdating is reliable, Moses lived (appox.) in 12 or 13 century bc.....

[Apikorus]

The chronology of the Hebrew Bible would place Moses in the 15th century BCE, 480 years before the founding of Solomon's (10th century BCE) Temple (see 1 Kings 6:1). Alas, there's no evidence in the material record, nor in contemporary texts, for a 15th c. BCE exodus. In addition, the 15th century BCE was the apex of the New Kingdom in Egypt, represented by two very strong leaders, the pharaohs Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II.

Scholars who are inclined to believe in the historicity of the exodus tradition often place it in the 13th c. BCE, and Ramses II is often identified as the most likely pharaoh of the oppression. The material record is equally silent, however, and by now many scholars no longer believe in an historical Moses.

[Bubbly]

I ran across this one time...for what it's worth...


“THE UNIVERSAL GOLDEN RULE�
______________________________________

Treat other people with decency because you believe that they deserve that - regardless of what any gods might think on the matter-ATHEISM

Choose thou for thyself that which thou choosest for thyself-BAHA'I FAITH

Make thine own self the measure of the others and so abstain from causing hurt to them-BUDDHISM
One should seek for others the happiness one desires for one’s self-BUDDHISM
Hurt not others in ways that you would find hurtful - BUDDHISM

What you would not wish done to yourself do not do unto others – CHINESE

All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.-CHRISTIAN

Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.- CONFUCIAN

Do not that to a neighbor which you shall take ill from him. – GRECIAN.

Do not to others what ye do not wish done to yourself and wish for others too what ye desire and long for, for yourself-HINDUISM
The true rule of life is to guard and do by the things of others as they do by their own -HINDUISM
This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others which if done to thee would cause thee pain.-HINDUISM

None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself-ISLAM

In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.- JAIN

Love thy neighbor as thyself-JUDAISM
Whatever thou hatest thyself, that do not to another.-JUDAISM

Let none of you treat his brother in a way he himself would not like to be treated – MOHAMMEDAN

Do as you would be done by. – PERSIAN

The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves – ROMAN

As thou deemest thyself, so deem others.-SIKH

Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.- TAOIST

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself. - ZOROASTRIAN

[Richard Carrier]

this is a reply to Atma Advani Sufi. As far as i know, Budha lived in th 5th century bc. IF OTdating is reliable, Moses lived (appox.) in 12 or 13 century bc.....

But some Hindu sacred texts, to which Sufi referred, long predate Moses. If there are any "commandments" or anything comparable in sanscrit texts that can be dated to the 2nd or 3rd millenia, that is what I would like someone to point me to. No one has as of yet.

But yes, Buddha predates neither Solon nor Moses. Solon dates to the 7th century B.C., and Moses (or the books containing the ten commandments) cannot on any argument be much later than that. Even radical minimalists present evidence the Pentateuch was originally composed around that time, though edited in subsequent centuries, so the OT commandments predate Buddha even on their view. Different historical analyses date Buddha between 566 and 368 B.C. So even at the earliest, he belongs to the 6th century.

[Richard Carrier]

I ran across this one time...for what it's worth...

Sources, Bubbly. Sources. Where do those statements come from? And after what date were they written? That's the issue.

For example, I know where the Confucian Golden Rule is recorded, but that had no apparent contact with Western traditions in antiquity, and at any rate could not have predated Solon (Confucius dates to the century after Solon, not before).

Finally, the Golden Rule is not a list of commandments--the essay in question is about a set of ten commandments. Not an all-encompassing rule--which indeed was everywhere and appears to have been a fixture of human wisdom all over the world since the dawn of writing.

[brotbeckian reality]

The idea that we can focus a lens back through the dark ages and reveal unknown or misunderstood facts and opinions from the other side of history is just dumb. Not only are those ancient languages long forgotten, but the languages we translated the originals from are also dead.

The messages from God in the laws of Moses are so contorted that we will never be able to glean the truth from them by simply memorizing the Bible.

Look at the most misunderstood of all God's laws, the 2nd Commandment. So much effort is put into trying to figure out if our great-great-grandchildren are going to be punished for our infidelity that we forget the real lesson. The disproportionate number, thousands and thousands, which receive peace through humility, is the part of the lesson God wants us to understand.

Rabbis, Priests, and Lawyers spend all their time (and all our money) trying to barter us out of the punishment we all deserve.

Look around you and open your eyes. For every hour you read Jefferson, Wordsworth, and Emerson take 15 minutes and write something down yourself. Then go back to it in a year and see if you still feel the same way.

Love,
O.F.

[-DM-]

O.F.:

There are problems with your feedback:
1) Your feedback consists almost entirely of unsupported belief statements.
2) Convincing evidence and/or argument is absent.
3) The fact is that we have no originals of ANY book of the Bible, thus your comment about the languages from which "the originals" are translated is erroneous insofar as the Bible is concerned.
4) Were the assertions in your first paragraph valid, then anything that you say about "messages from God," "God's laws," "the 2nd Commandment," etc. would be negated inasmuch as you would have no way of differentiating understanding from misunderstanding.
5) That "God" ever gave us Commandments, Laws, etc., is an assumption, an assumption which has not been demonstrated.

-DM-

[Doug Stevenson]

Dear Richard:
You might try looking up the Egyptian "42 Principles of Ma'at" which are far older than the Ten Commandments. Eight of the Ten Commandments a la Exodus 20 are found in them. The two that are not found both deal with God. I note that the "Ten Commandments" are listed at least three places in the Bible: Exodus 20 lists 10; Deuteronomy 5 lists seven of those ten; and Exodus 34 lists 4 of the ten, plus six more that are not listed in Exodus 20. Thus, when the lists are merged, there are 16 "Ten Commandments." Sounds like a good sucker bet: how many Ten Commandments are there?

It is my opinion that Moses (Yes, I believe he was a real person.) either wrote the Ten Commandments himself (As a Prince of Egypt he had to be familiar with the law because he was a judge - there was no separate judicial branch in Egypt at the time.), or received them from priests at the Temple of Hathor located on the low ridge between Serabit el Khadim (biblical Rephidim) and Gebel Ghorabi (biblical Mount Horeb). (The third peak in this low masseif is Gebel Saniya (Mount Sinai) - interesting, three peaks in close proximity with modern names very similar to the biblical names of three peaks that were also in close proximity.

I place the Exodus between 1184 and 1181 BC during the reigns of either Setakht or Ramesses III. How I did that is somewhat involved, so if you want more info, e-mail me at djohns1066@yahoo.com.

I have been trying to unravel the Exodus and Moses' life story for two years, now. The story I reconstruct, mostly using the Bible, is a far cry from what they teach in Sunday school - that Moses was Egyptian, not "Hebrew," is just the beginning. The real story is more fantastic than the fictional one. What amazes me isn't what the Bible got wrong (There's a lot of that.), but what it got right. The details are often garbled, but the broad outline of the story holds up to careful analysis, as do many other Bible stories.

I hope this helps.

Doug Stevenson

[Richard Carrier]

That Moses may have been Egyptian and adapted Egyptian religion is plausible (a lot of parallels exist, e.g. aversion to pork, circumcision, etc., even monotheism begins with Akhenaton a few centuries before the Exodus). But I am not qualified to assess any such theories. Anyway, I will look into the Principles. Thanks!

[DBK]

"Solon is the founder of Western democracy and the first man in history to articulate ideas of equal rights for all citizens, and though he did not go nearly as far in the latter as we have come today, Moses can claim no connection to either."

First of all, to be fair, refer to the advocate of "Moses'" 10 Commandments as Jewish and not being attributed to the man Moses himself. One reason why this is best is because all can agree that the 10 Commandments are Jewish in origin, but the Bible itself disagrees with the idea that they were formed and transmitted solely by Moses. Both Jewish and Christian philosohpies teach that the 10 Commandments are of a Divine origin.

"Solon was the first man in Western history to publicly record a civil constitution in writing. No one in Hebrew history did anything of the kind, least of all Moses."

It is widely accepted that Judaism is well over 3000 years old... far older than Solon. The Bible in fact is certainly a civil constitution among other things. It is a book of laws. It transmits far more commandments than The 10 Commandments and certianly far more than is contained in the 10 commandments that you attribute to Solon.

Judaism maintains that there are 613 commandments or laws in the Torah/BIble; laws detailing how one must treat a slave better than himself, that one must feed his/her animals before his/herself, and laws that detail how one must inquire about the price of a merchant's goods, so as not to raise his hopes.

If the Judeo-Christian's biggest and best contribution were solely The 10 Commandments, it would be understandable to question the Judeo-Christian contribution to society. This is hardly the case. Anyone familiar with the Torah/Bible/Old Testament could tell you that it is a book filled with criminal, civil law and otherwise. Then there is the Oral Law, which explains in great detail -- volumes upon volumes over centuries -- the laws found in the Written Law (Bible).

"Solon's rules allow one to lie if doing so is a good deed (no such prescription to do good appears in the Ten Commandments of Moses)."

The author has a limited or nonexistant understanding of the Jewish tradition and Bible which has in it examples of lying for good causes. In addition it is widely known according to Jewish philophy and law that there are appropriate times to lie.

Ultimately the author is ignoring the fact that the founding fathers, the writers of our nation's constitution were indeed Christian and were influenced by Jewish and Christian values, which are more detailed than Solon. All of Soloman's "commandments" are touched upon in the Five Books of Moses and in their ancient commentary, both of which preceded Solon.
Instead he chooses to attribute these values to a secular person simply because it fits his worldview. The author obviously is not educated in Jewish philosophy, much less the Bible iteslf. In fact he is presenting a skewed perception of the very thing he argues against. He argues that Solon influenced Greek and Roman civilizations... did he have a hand in their practice of infantacide, pedefilia? killing for sport? It is clearly the rich and plentiful Judeo-Christian values and philosophy that are the bedrock for our nation's constitution, not Solon's limited 10 commandments.

[Alf]

I am not Richard Carrier but I want to comment on a few things.

First, if you assert that the 10 commandments are of divine origin then you have to somehow assert that while all the neighbouring cultures got the same commandments from themselves and each other, the jews were somehow left out on this and never heard of them until God told them to the jews.

Otherwise, if you do accept that the jews had some cultural exchange with the neighbouring cultures you have to conclude that Moses just as well could have said something like this at the top of the mountain.

God: Here are the 10 commandments......<insert them all here>

Moses: Hey God, you know, we already knew about those things....we didn't steal or murder before either you know.

Perhaps he didn't out of respect you might say but the fact is that the ten commandments given to Moses as told in the bible contain absolutely nothing "new". It was typical morality and rules of the time and day of people living in the middle east.

I think we can safely assert that the ten commandments is NOT of divine origin.

Alf

[McD]

"Ultimately the author is ignoring the fact that the founding fathers, the writers of our nation's constitution were indeed Christian...

Strange that these Christians (that is every member of the 5th Congress--many of whom indeed qualified as 'founding fathers') after hearing the entire text of the proposed Treaty with Tripoli read aloud on June 7th, 1797 voted for it without a single dissenter. It was later signed by Pres. John Adams.

Why is that significant you ask? Because the Treaty of Tripoli states quite unambiguously that the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

Strange behavior from a group of orthodox Christians wouldn't you say?

Our nation was not founded upon Christianity. It has it's origins in the very anti-Christian European Englightenment movement. Our laws are based on English Common Law, not the Bible.

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides for absolute freedom of worship. Your Bible's First Commandment absolutely forbids it.

[Richard Carrier]

...the Bible itself disagrees with the idea that they were formed and transmitted solely by Moses. Both Jewish and Christian philosohpies teach that the 10 Commandments are of a Divine origin.

And their only source for that claim is (supposedly) Moses himself--who alone claims to have seen God deliver them. Everyone else only saw Moses arrive with commandments and heard him claim they came from God. By comparison, Hammurabi's Code (which contains much of what ended up in the Code of Moses) claims also to have been delivered by the Sun God. Just as a Christian would say that Hammurabi was only saying that (since there is no pagan Sun God, nor is Hammurabi's Code actually God's Law, since it contains much that Christians and Jews would disagree with), so do objective historians assume the same of Moses, until it can be proved otherwise. Doctrines of faith cannot be substituted for demonstrable historical facts.



"Solon was the first man in Western history to publicly record a civil constitution in writing. No one in Hebrew history did anything of the kind, least of all Moses." It is widely accepted that Judaism is well over 3000 years old... far older than Solon. The Bible in fact is certainly a civil constitution among other things.

No, it is not. Not a single element of the law says anything about a political apparatus. There is no mention of how laws are to be passed, or how the government is to be structured, no mention of legislatures, presidents, etc. A "civil constitution" establishes a civil government, based on a balance of powers and civil rights, and articulates how leaders are to be chosen and how laws are to be passed. Compare our Constitution with the Laws of Moses: see how radically, categorically different they are? The one is just a list of laws. The latter is a document articulating how laws are to be created and what the limits are to such creation. These are categorically different things. Our Constitution thus falls into the category of what Solon invented, not what Moses presented. Indeed, our Constitution and the Laws of Moses share almost nothing in common, whereas our Constitution and the Constitution of Solon share many things in common--and in fact our founding fathers outright said Solon's constitution (among others) was their inspiration (see, e.g., the work by John Adams, History of the Principal Republics in the World: A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, published in 1794).



...it is widely known according to Jewish philophy and law that there are appropriate times to lie.

Maybe so, but no such thing exists in the Ten Commandments that people are talking about who say, as my article begins, "The Ten Commandments are the foundation of Western morality and the American Constitution and government." My essay is about that argument, not yours. And even if we say that all 613 commandments should be posted on school walls and in courtrooms around the country, still not a single one of those commandments says it is okay to lie to do good--and still none of those commandments is comparable to anything in our Constitution, much less its actual "source."



Ultimately the author is ignoring the fact that the founding fathers, the writers of our nation's constitution were indeed Christian and were influenced by Jewish and Christian values, which are more detailed than Solon.

But not more detailed than Greek and Roman moral philosophy. If you get to introduce the whole Judeo-Christian tradition, then I get to introduce the whole Greco-Roman tradition, which had far more impact on the Founding Fathers, who explicitly identified the sources of their ideals as Stoic and Epicurean and Aristotelian tradition, and explicitly said their idea for our Constitution came from the constitutions of Athens and Rome (and the free Italian states of the Renaissance)--they never say their idea for our Constitution came from the Bible. Of course, whether Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were "Christians" is debatable. Their religious views were that of Deism, rejecting the divinity of Jesus, which seems to me to rule out being called a "Christian." But whatever the case, regardless of their religious profession, the Constitution consciously mimics that of Solon, not the Commandments of Moses (no matter how many you care to include under that label).



All of Soloman's "commandments" are touched upon in the Five Books of Moses and in their ancient commentary, both of which preceded Solon.

Before making this claim, please present me with examples of Solon's commandments appearing in any book we can prove was written before the 7th century B.C.

Note, however, that I don't necessarily disagree with you--I never claim in that article that the moral ideas Solon articulated were all unique to him, but that Solon's ideals were better than those of Moses (regardless of what later thinkers might have added to what Moses presented). Moreover, my essay addresses those who say, as my essay explains in the very first sentence, "The Ten Commandments are the foundation of Western morality and the American Constitution and government." That is the thesis my essay aims to refute, not any thesis you may be advancing here.

But even if we expand that to include all 613 commandments, still none match those of Solon. Thus, Solon places first and foremost what Moses left for later Jews to, even at best, comment on only in passing and as secondary to what Moses did put first and foremost. That is what my article explains is the important difference. Moreover, I distinguish Solon's moral commandments from his Athenian constitution--it is the latter that has absolutely no precedent in any pre-Solon Jewish text of any sort. Solon's moral commandments are suited to a civil society. Those of Moses are not. Solon invented the civil constitution, which our Founding Fathers used as a model. Moses did not. That's the point of my editorial.



He argues that Solon influenced Greek and Roman civilizations... did he have a hand in their practice of infantacide, pedefilia? killing for sport?

Well, what about burning witches, executing unbelievers, keeping slaves, stoning to death those who pick up sticks on Saturday? The Judeo-Christian tradition has its good share of wicked barbarity held up as righteous and moral. You won't win in any contest there. But lucky for you this has nothing to do with the thesis of my essay.



It is clearly the rich and plentiful Judeo-Christian values and philosophy that are the bedrock for our nation's constitution, not Solon's limited 10 commandments.

Give me a single actual piece of real evidence (not conjecture, but actual statements from a Founding Father, etc.) that any actual teaching that came from Judaism or Christianity and not from Greek or Roman philosophy, actually inspired even a single sentence of the U.S. Constitution. I'm serious. I'll be waiting for your evidence. Because until you find some, your statement above remains an unproven and groundless assertion. Warning: there are fake quotes on the web and in print, so confirm the authenticity of anything you use before using it.

Finally, my essay did not say that Solon's ten commandments were "the bedrock for our nation's constitution," but that his Athenian constitution was. My discussion of his moral commandments pertained instead to the ideals contained in them, as against those contained in the ten commandments those people were referring to who say "The Ten Commandments are the foundation of Western morality and the American Constitution and government." In other words, my essay says the ideals of Solon lay behind our Constitution, not the ideals of the Ten Commandments. As for the actual mechanics of the Consitution, those come from Solon's constitution, not his ten commandments--just as my essay says. Try actually reading it some time.

[Enda80]

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=2

Mr. Carrier's article reminded me of a topic I started elsewhere.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-97589.html

I was wondering if anyone has ever accused Humanists of being Eurocentric. I ask because I was reading an article in the Humanist where the writer compared herself to the humanists of ancient Greece-which is of course in Europe. Of course, in Mr. Carrier's article he references Solon, another ancient Greek.

(In fact, the word "Europe" derives from the Olympian myth of Europa.)

I know that some Humanists would allow in some of the non-theistic thought of China, but other than that, I have not come across much non-European antecedents for Humanism or democracy.



*(I know that today many Jews follow a more Humanist path, and that no Jew who wishes to survive would dare promote a belief in Yahweh/God, since subsquent events have shown that if said entity exists or ever existed, he represents a scatalogical, dishonest, and disloyal deity who broke his promise with the Judahites, went over to Germany, then broke his promises to Germany, too, and now uses the country good old boys of the U.S. South to menace whoever his arbitary and ruthless whims target.)
Still, so far as I know, no Judahite before two thousand years ago rose to become a prominent precursor of Humanism.)

[starling]

:eek: You Mr. Carrier are a freaking genius! Just for finding that stuff on Solon! Not ever in a single History class did anyone ever mention who wrote up the Athenian constitution; I can't believe I missed that! Those are some sweet commandments too, my gosh 10 commandments that actually make sense? I wonder if my local library would let me put them on the bulletin board... :devil3:

[Richard Carrier]

I was wondering if anyone has ever accused Humanists of being Eurocentric. I ask because I was reading an article in the Humanist where the writer compared herself to the humanists of ancient Greece-which is of course in Europe. Of course, in Mr. Carrier's article he references Solon, another ancient Greek.

Of course, my essay is about the development of morality and government in the West (America is, after all, a European colony), and therefore I had to address America's European roots. Eastern philosophies only started to have a notable effect on the development of Western moral philosophy and popular culture in the 19th century (for a variety of reasons), which comes after the signing of the Constitution.

But humanists do have a tendency toward Eurocentrism, sometimes with good reason, sometimes not. Indeed, humanists can even fall into Amerocentrism--again sometimes with good reason, sometimes not. We do need to keep an eye out for the perspectives, struggles, contributions, and interests of non-Americans and non-Europeans. But we also have particular struggles and questions to address that are peculiar to America or Europe, which requires a certain focus.

Historically, too, there is a certain difficulty in addressing humanism outside the Western tradition, since "humanism" as a word and an ideology is itself peculiarly Western. The idea that one would even need to make a distinction between a humanocentric or deocentric worldview is itself an odd notion to many cultures (epecially China and other Asian cultures and to a lesser extent India, etc.). And trying to nail down just what other cultures mean by "god" that has any parallel to the Western tradition is no easy task, either. Both reasons may scare many humanists from attempting to pontificate about what they don't know. Thus, they speak to the audiences they know, in the language and with the assumptions and historical traditions they know and that they know their audience will find familiar, which can seem rudely eurocentric or amerocentric, but in reality it is often the only wise thing they can do.

But humanists are not isolationists and do reach out, especially to Indian rationalists and some African movements as well--to that end, you may be interested in the international umbrella organization of IHEU, the International Humanist and Ethical Uninion (http://www.iheu.org/).

[B.S. Lewis]

Personally I've always liked the Six Commandments (Matthew 19:17-19). Jesus' restatement of the Ten Commandments, they exclude exactly those which Richard Carrier objects to--the first four and the last one. They do include "honor your father and mother," but I suspect that the Greek word used there for "honor" is closer to Solon's, or even the same (given that Solon also wrote in Greek). Anyway, if it weren't for the Six Commandments, I'd have to agree with R.C. about the religious precepts being outdated; but this passage gives a handy list for anyone who remains a Christian but feels uneasy about some of the Ten for the reasons R.C. gave.

[B.S. Lewis]

R.C. -- Have you ever read The Six Commandments (Matthew 19:17-19)? Jesus' restatement of the Ten Commandments, they exclude exactly those which you object to--the first four and the last one. Actually they do retain "honor your parents," but since the NT is written in Greek, I suspect that the word used for "honor" is now the same one that Solon used, or closer to it.

matt

[Richard Carrier]

Personally I've always liked the Six Commandments (Matthew 19:17-19). Jesus' restatement of the Ten Commandments, they exclude exactly those which Richard Carrier objects to--the first four and the last one. They do include "honor your father and mother," but I suspect that the Greek word used there for "honor" is closer to Solon's, or even the same (given that Solon also wrote in Greek). Anyway, if it weren't for the Six Commandments, I'd have to agree with R.C. about the religious precepts being outdated; but this passage gives a handy list for anyone who remains a Christian but feels uneasy about some of the Ten for the reasons R.C. gave.

Fascinating observation--that Jesus would drop five whole commandments and then add a new one ("love your neighbor as yourself"), and then say that giving all your wealth to the poor in addition to these will guarantee you a place in heaven. No mention of even believing in God much less in Jesus. Thus, Jesus appears to be saying good atheists go to heaven! I never noticed that before. The rest of what Jesus says in Matthew is not so nice. But this is a good one to call Christians' attention to.

Note: The word Jesus uses for "honor your parents" is timao, the same Solon uses for "honor the gods" (it means to value, praise, bestow awards upon), whereas Solon's "honor your parents" uses aideomai which means "show respect for, have regard for" in the sense of feeling ashamed when you go against them, respecting their opinion as you would a trusted friend's, etc.