The preceding analysis presents very strong textual evidence that two narratives exist within the book of Exodus. While each narrative contains a ‘decalogue’ of ten covenant items, the makeup of those items are vastly different between narratives, and only one narrative explicitly names those items as the ‘Ten Commandments.’ Interestingly, the version of the covenant which the text names as such is not the version which has traditionally been associated with that name. At the least, this analysis should inspire greater thought and research in those who hold tighter to tradition than to textual analysis.

Still, even though two narratives can be found in the text, what purpose could be served by the inclusion of both, and what was the motivation for the inception of two separate narratives? While the text may not offer concrete answers, the theories of Source Criticism may shed some light on the causes leading to this textual anomaly. These theories suppose that multiple sources contributed to the creation of the Pentateuch in general, which includes Exodus in this example. Two of these sources are regarded as early Hebrew in origin, and are termed the J and E source. A later source, known as the P source, is posited to originate from priestly and scribal redactors during the Hebrew exile in Babylon, who collected early Hebrew writings and oral traditions to compile a written scripture source for the Hebrew religion. The fourth source, D, is not thought to be relevant to the book of Exodus.

If one operates under the hypothesis that one narrative may be derived from an earlier J/E tradition, while another narrative may be derived from a later P source, then the suggestion that the first narrative is P-derived and the second narrative is J/E-derived becomes very attractive for a number of reasons. The text seems to suggest that the second narrative is older, and that the first narrative is a redacted version of the second. For example, while the second covenant contains references to national feasts and sacrifices, the first replaces these with prohibitions. However, those missing references turn up later (23:14-19), possibly because the redactor who moved them to make way for priestly prohibitions didn’t want to throw them out of the narrative altogether.

Additionally, the first narrative features the priesthood much more frequently than the second narrative, and even records Aaron as communing on the top of the mountain with Moses and Yahweh (24:9-11). If this narrative was prepared by Yahwist priests, it would have been in their best interest to describe the original priesthood as close to Yahweh as possible. Additionally, the recording of the details of the tabernacle and priesthood after the destruction of the original Temple would have served as a way for the priests to preserve its memory. Both narratives are virtually identical in their description of the tabernacle and priesthood- it is impossible to determine from the text which is original, if one does indeed precede the other. It is possible that a priestly redactor copied the descriptions from the second narrative into the first, or that he may have added the same description into both narratives. Ultimately, it appears that narrative continuity between the two were added by later redactors to effect a smooth transition.

While I feel that the preceding analysis is an excellent example of the disparities that exist between different passages in the Bible, I in no way intend for it to make any conclusion regarding the nature of God; literary criticism does not take on the extra burden of theology.