Gav Gud De Ti Bud uden at føje mere til?

Der findes en masse bortforklaringer, der går ud på at skelne mellem forskellige hårkløverier:

1. Forskel på hvad Gud sagde selv, og hvad han sagde gennem Moses.
2. Forskel på hvad jøderne kunne høre, og hvad kun Moses kunne høre.
3. Forskel på ord som "pagt", "vidnesbyrd", "bud", "love", "befalinger", "belæringer" og "retsregler".
4. Forskel på moralske, rituelle og ceremonielle bud.

Men intet af dette kan forklare, hvorfor Gud i den ene version giver Moses stentavlerne umiddelbart efter at have udtalt De Ti Bud, men i den anden version snakker videre i elleve kapitler, før han udleverer tavlerne.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges stikker ikke noget under stolen: På grundlag af bl.a. denne forskel mellem de to Mosebøger mener The Cambridge Bible, at der er en god sag for at hævde, at De Ti Bud ikke oprindeligt har været en del af Anden Mosebog.

The question which mainly concerns us here is that of the relation of the two editions of the Ten Words in E and D. To the argument that because so much else of law and narrative in D is based on E, therefore D must also have derived the Ten Words from E, there are the following objections: (1) E's edition has not only many deuteronomic phrases, but in the 4th commandment reflects P ; while D's is in style and spirit consistently deuteronomic. (2) E connects the Covenant at Horeb not with the Ten Words but with others. (3) These other Words, while offering some parallels to the Ten, are of a distinctly less spiritual character and apparently from a more primitive stage of ethical development ; and it is difficult to conceive that E could have first recorded the Decalogue as given at Horeb and then based the Covenant there on other words of an inferior character. (4) Nor is it clear that E's narrative of the theophany, Ex. xix. 14— 17, 19, xx. 18 — 21, implies that the people heard from God any articulate words at all, before Moses (because of their apprehension that God would speak directly to them) entered the darkness out of which His thunder had come and received for them the Words) Ex. xx. 33—26, xxiii. 10 — 33) on which the Covenant was based.

On these grounds a strong case has been made out for the hypothesis that E did not originally contain the Ten Words; that these were the work of the deuteronomic school, based on the teaching of the 8th century prophets and expressed throughout in deuteronomic phraseology ; that D, while borrowing from E the tradition of a Covenant at Horeb, substituted them as the basis of that Covenant for the other words which E hail connected with it, or else did not know of those other words in E, for he distinctly asserts (v. 33) that God added no others to the Ten at Horeb ; and finally that a late editor, with both D and P before him, intruded the Ten Words into E repeating most of their deuteronomic phraseology, but substituting in the 4th commandment for one of D’s phrases a phrase based on P. This hypothesis finds support in the substance of the Decalogue, which it is maintained is suitable for an agricultural and not for a nomadic people ; and especially in the prohibition of graven images, the early date of which is difficult if not impossible to reconcile with the use of images in Israel before the 8th century and particularly in the N. kingdom in which E was composed.
(George Adam Smith, Book of Deuteronomy - in the Revised Version, 1918, side 83)

(For en forklaring på "E" og "D", se evt. Hvem skrev Mosebøgerne?)

Dette viser, hvor vigtigt det kan være, at man ikke bevidstløst bortforklarer enhver selvmodsigelse. Selv denne tilsyneladende trivielle selvmodsigelse kan afsløre, at De Ti Bud ikke oprindeligt har hørt hjemme i den bog, hvor jøderne og de kristne læser dem i dag.