Again the Commandments are split into two very distinctive parts: behavior towards God, behavior toward other humans. And the parts are distinctly unequal. Duties towards God are much more prominent. It is not just that these rules come first. They are much more detailed. For example, prohibitions against work on the Sabbath are spelled out to apply not only to the male head of the family, but also to his sons, daughters, male slaves, female slaves, even his animals and visitors. In contrast, for inter-human law we have, for instance, simply “you shall not kill”. There is a translation difficulty: “kill” or “murder”?65 No matter for the moment. Not only is the penalty not set out, but the offence is not defined or described. Yet the offence cries out for clarification. But there is much more. The rules about behavior to other humans are socially necessary but banal in the extreme: no murder, no theft, no adultery, no false witness. Why did God bother with these? Why was He needed? Not even the penalty is spelled out. I hope I will not be regarded as frivolous or cynical if I recount an anecdote. While working on this paper, I had a conversation with a non-believing Jewish friend who is an inspired legal historian with life-threatening health problems. He reported he had come seriously to consider that God had given the Commandments to Moses. One of his arguments from the rules about conduct to other humans was precisely their simplicity in which they differ from other ancient legal regulations. Everyone could understand what was expected from them without much thought. In fact, he claimed, they were framed exactly like the commands he gives in training a puppy. I am not convinced. But he has a point. The extreme simplicity of these commands, their very banality demands explanation. 65 See, e.g. Childs, Exodus, pp. 419 ff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=