My answer to this one: Take two tablets and call me in the morning.

I've had a couple of people inquire on this subject, which can be found addressed on a variety of skeptical websites. It is alleged that the three chapters above offer different versions of the big 10 C's, and this is supposed to be a problem. Let's take care of these starting with Exodus 34, which is the easy one.

It is usually argued that here, God said He would make a set of tables containing the words that were on the first set; yet the ten commands that follow do not match the usual set of "Thou shalt not..." commands. Well, here's what the deal is: Ex. 34 contains a ritual Decalogue that is likely meant to be parallel to the ethical Decalogue, and Ex. 34 as a whole is a narrative of the renewal of the covenant following the golden calf incident. The ritual Decalogue is an addition in light of that incident, and note that Moses is commanded to write them, whereas it is God who will write the new copy of the ethical set (34:1, 28; the subject of "he wrote upon the tables" in the last verse is God -- it is because these critics understand the subject as Moses that they are missing the point).

With that, what about the differences between Exod. 34 and Deut. 5? Let's run them in parallel and see what the fuss is about:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me. -- Same words in Deut. 5.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. -- Same as in Deut. 5, other than perhaps some difference in vocabulary.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. -- Again, the same.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This is where the fussing begins, and it's not about minor differences in vocabulary (for example, the ox and ass are specified, versus the generic "cattle"); rather, the charges emerge in the difference in reason for the Sabbath. In Exodus 20:11ff, it is said, it is becase of creation's seventh day; but in Deuteronomy 5:15 we are told:

And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.

Critics would do well to recall here, though, that Exod. 20 and Deut. 5 are addressed to different sets of people with different experiences -- the first set had just been released from Egypt; the second set had never known slavery but were born during the Exodus; moreover, the Deuteronomy covenant would rule those who came afterwards who never knew the toil in Egypt. The initial generation had been saved from Egyptian slavery by way of incredible miracles; for these people, the role of God as Creator was a central truth -- and they would need no reminder that they didn't get a day off in Egypt! But now, as the Israelites are about to cross the Jordan and enter into the unknown perils of taking over the Promised Land, they are better reminded of the Sabbath in light of the former (and unknown by experience) plight as slaves. (Of course, the original release marked the redemption of the Israelites, but mainly their creation as a covenanted nation.) Note also that there is a difference in the word used: Ex. 20 says to remember (zakar) the Sabbath day, and tells why God blessed the Sabbath; Deut. 5 says to keep (shamar -- the meaning is to protect or guard) the Sabbath, but rememeber (zakar) the slavery in Egypt.)

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. -- Only minor differences in vocab here in the first of the set; no reason for fuss!

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. -- Here, the order of "wife" and "house" is different, and "field" is added in Deut. (no surprise, since the Exodus gang was nomadic; the next generation would settle down into agriculture)...nothing to fuss about.

And that's it.

Which leaves me to wonder: What's all the fuss? (Actually I know what the fuss is -- it has to do with Skeptics not wanting to hang these commands in the courtroom...but that's another story. I'll say at least that it's ridiculous to make political hash when you can't even get the social contexts in order!)