Then the two interpersonal commands that are not simply framed “You shall not ____” are framed in a more complex manner. Thus, a reason for honoring father and mother is given, and it scarcely seems to have a legal content.66 It is also expressed more directly: “Honor ____.” The last command, “You shall not covet ______” concerns mental activity, not physical action, and can scarcely give rise to a law suit. And there is a third peculiarity in the tradition - though this time not in the substance of the Commandments - in the role of Aaron. And Aaron’s role is pivotal. These peculiarities in the tradition must be explained and, for me, the explanation must lie within the tradition itself. [I am well aware that some readers will reject this paper as giving too few references to standard scholarship. I understand. But my concerns are not with the precise meaning of individual provisions, nor with the historical provenance of our accounts in Exodus and Deuteronomy, nor even with Deuteronomy. All I set out to do is to understand the tradition in Exodus in the context of the place of legislation in the history of legal development.67] Legislation is a very particular form of law making - the only source of law that rulers keep under their direct control. And the only necessary talent of rulers is to remain in power. Moses is a leader in trouble.Indeed, for him, one problem follows another. It was God 66 For a convincing explanation of the formulation of this commandment and its position in Exodus immediately before the prohibition on murder, see above all, Calum Carmichael, The Spirit of Biblical Law(Athens, GA 1996), pp. 94 ff. 67 It has been suggested to me that the structure is exactly what one should expect if God actually gave the Commandments to Moses. The interpersonal laws would be familiar, and would need no detail. Yet for me, detail would still be needed -- as we find in other ancient legislation - and the sanctions should be set out. V
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=