DECALOGUE. — The Ten Commandments (δέκα λόγοι, "ten words"), the ten precepts given by God to Moses on Sinai (Ex. 34:28), constitute the obligations of the covenant (Ex. 19:5 ff.) established between God Himself and the people of Israel, chosen as a nation (Ex. 20:1–17; Deut. 5:6–22). The Decalogue, as the essence of the covenant, remains the essence of ancient Yahwism and the Magna Carta of the chosen nation. It stands at the center of the entire Old Testament, which recounts the history of the covenant in its implementation, with the observance or neglect of the Decalogue’s precepts by the nation and the application of the corresponding sanctions (Ex. 20 ff.; cf. Lev. 26; Deut. 28).
The commandments bind Israel to strict monotheism; the second and third commandments pertain to religious duties, namely, reverence for the divine name and observance of the Sabbath, while the others are moral in nature. The Church (as do Jews and Lutherans) regards the prohibition of any carved or idolatrous image (Ex. 20:4 ff.) as a simple explanation or practical application of the first commandment. However, it correctly distinguishes (contrary to many Protestants) in verse 17 two separate precepts: the desire for another’s property is specifically distinct from the lust for another’s wife.
The first commandment, as the foundation and root of the others, is linked to a collective sanction: punishment or reward for the infidelity or fidelity of successive generations (from fathers to sons) as parts of a single organic whole—the nation.
In the religious and moral doctrine of the Decalogue lies the true prerogative of the people of Israel. Nothing comparable exists among other peoples. Moses’ Decalogue has no rival in the world (Vaccari). Based on natural law (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 100, arts. 1, 3, 11), these precepts, though directed to the nation as a whole (collectivism), also bound each individual member (individualization). They remain inscribed in the conscience of all humanity (universalism) and thus entered unchanged into the definitive covenant sealed by Christ.
Critics who seek in ancient Yahwism a polytheistic, ritualistic, and amoral cult have fiercely contested the antiquity and Mosaic authenticity of the Decalogue:
a) K. Marti, S. Mowinckel, P. Meinhold, and others date its present form to the post-exilic period;
b) More commonly, J. Wellhausen, B. Stade, R. Smend, H. Schultz, H. Holzinger, B. Baentsch, and others (including sociological theorists such as A. Loisy, A. Lods, A. Causse) place it in the 7th century, as a product of prophetic preaching;
c) B. Duhm, W. Nowack, H. Schmidt, E. König, B. D. Eerdmans, and others, excepting the Sabbath and filial piety precepts, trace it back to Mosaic times;
d) Critics most familiar with Near Eastern literature (Egyptian, Babylonian) affirm its Mosaic origin in substance, though acknowledging later redactions: E. Meier, S. R. Driver, A. Dillmann, F. Delitzsch, H. Grimme, H. Gunkel, R. Kittel, A. Gampert, A. Jirku, E. Sellin, P. Volz, etc.;
e) Some, like L. Lemme and G. Wildebor, consider it entirely Mosaic.
All Catholic exegetes attribute the Decalogue to Moses in both substance and literary form, allowing only for traces of later redaction in style and secondary details.
In reality, the variants between Ex. 20:1–17 and Deut. 5:6–22 are numerous but not significant. Exodus grounds Sabbath observance in God’s rest after six days of creation; Deuteronomy emphasizes a humanitarian motive without excluding the former. Exodus lists a wife among a man’s possessions (reflecting patriarchal society); Deuteronomy treats her separately. These are incidental literary modifications, and the Nash Papyrus (v.)—from a pre-Masoretic text—offers its own version. They suggest that only the precepts themselves were inscribed on the two tablets, without the explanatory motives that sometimes accompany them.
There is no reason to relegate the Decalogue to a later period or deny it to Moses. Its “Deuteronomistic” coloring in Deuteronomy proves nothing; the late composition of Deuteronomy is not at all demonstrated—in fact, a revision of this old hypothesis is underway among scholars. Nor is it true that the prophets were unaware of the Decalogue; Ex. 20:10–12 explicitly mentions precepts given to Israel by Yahweh in the desert, including the command to sanctify the Sabbath. It is beyond doubt that the prophets urge observance of the Decalogue’s commandments (Gampert): cf. Hos. 4:2, 13; 6:9; Jer. 7:9; etc. Their entire preaching calls for a return to the pure monotheism of origins, against idolatry—that is, observance of the first precept, the root of all others and the essence of the Sinai covenant. They presuppose knowledge of these precepts when they rail against their violation: Amos 2:4–16; Hos. 4:6; 6:5–11; Isa. 1:12; Jer. 6:19; Mic. 6:8; etc.
Ancient documents from Moses’ time attest to the practice of inscribing important religious or political texts on stone (for the Decalogue: Ex. 24:12; Deut. 9:9), placing them in sacred sites. A treaty between Suppiluliumas, king of Hatti, and Mattiuzza, king of Mitanni, records that a copy of the tablet was deposited in the temple of Shamash. Stone stelae with carvings and inscriptions have been found at Sinai by F. Petrie (Researches in Sinai, London 1906).
Finally, ethnology has established the primacy of the worship of the Supreme Being (monotheism) and the elevated moral sentiment of primitive peoples (W. Schmidt, *Manuale di storia comparata delle religioni*, trans. it., Brescia 1938, pp. 428–78), in harmony with evidence from Egypt (ch. 125 of the Book of the Dead: L. Speleers, *Égypte*, in DBs, II, cols. 84–75), Babylonian texts (J. Plessis, *Babylon et la Bible*, in DBs, I, cols. 841–45), and Phoenician sources (G. B. Roggia, *Alcune osservazioni sul culto di El a Ras Shamra*, in Aevum, 15 [1941], pp. 559–75). — See pl. LXXXIII.
Among the articles:
A. Fernandez, *El castigo de los hijos por los pecados de los padres*, in *Estudios eclesiásticos*, 2 (1923), pp. 419-26;
A. Vaccari, *De praeceptorum Decalogi distinctione et ordinem*, in *Verbum Domini*, 17 (1937), pp. 317-20, 329-34; id., *Praeceptorum Decalogi numeratio*, ibid., 20 (1940), p. 179 ff.;
H. Mischaud, *Sous quelle forme le Décalogue fut-il promulgué?*, in *Revue apologétique*, 64 (1937, 1), pp. 665-81; 65 (1937, 2), pp. 23-34;
M. Valentin, *Le condizioni sociali del D. e la sua autenticità mosaica*, in *Salesianum*, 1 (1939), pp. 407-20;
E. Baumann, *Der Ursprung der zehn Gebote*, in *Junge Kirche*, 9 (1941), pp. 126-33;
L. Hatmann, *The enumeration of the Ten Commandments*, in *The Catholic Biblical Quarterly*, 7 (1945), pp. 105-108;
S. Lach, *Le décadogue à la lumière de la critique biblique moderne*, in *Athenaeum Kaplanskie*, 45 (1946), pp. 225-44; id., *Qu'est-ce que le décadogue?*, ibid., 45 (1946), pp. 333-52; 46 (1947), pp. 23-33; id., *Les deux rédactions du décadogue*, ibid., 46 (1947), pp. 142-51, 23-48; id., *Les commandements du Décadogue*, ibid., 46 (1947), pp. 33-45; id., *L'époque de la promulgation du Décadogue*, ibid., 47 (1947), pp. 14-20; id., *Le lieu de la promulgation du Décadogue*, ibid., 47 (1947), pp. 383-94; id., *Explication du texte du Décadogue*, ibid., 48 (1948), pp. 327-45.