Are the Ten Commandments taken from the forty-two precepts of Ma’at?

Answer

The forty-two precepts of Ma’at are a list of principles named after an ancient Egyptian goddess of truth, justice, and order. The precepts of Ma’at are found in inscriptions in tombs and on some papyrus records. Some critics of the Bible claim that the Ten Commandments were not original with Moses (or with Moses’ God) but were plagiarized from the forty-two precepts of Ma’at. Neither logic nor history supports this claim.

According to Egyptian religion, a dead person’s soul is weighed against a feather on the scale of Ma’at. Only those whose hearts are free from evil are spared from judgment. As a way of proclaiming his purity, the dead person declares the forty-two principles of Ma’at, each to a different sub-deity. These principles are not laws in any sense; they are simply declarations that the person has avoided certain behaviors. Each is phrased as a negative: for example, “I have not swindled,” “I have not taken food from a child,” or “I have not made anyone cry.”

Of course, there are similarities between some of the principles of Ma’at and the Ten Commandments. Any culture’s moral code will overlap other moral codes to some extent. For instance, the Egyptian statements “I have not told lies” and “I have not committed adultery” correspond with two of the Ten Commandments. However, this similarity, by itself, is not evidence that one inspired the other. With a list as long as the forty-two precepts of Ma’at, there are bound to be parallels with other moral systems.

The forty-two precepts of Ma’at do not seem to have enjoyed widespread distribution in ancient Egypt. Other than their presence on the walls of several tombs, they appear in one or two written Egyptian works, but there is almost no historical documentation about how the ideas were used. Different lists in different places have different declarations, so there’s no “official” list of Ma’at’s principles.

Furthermore, in coIn contrast to the principles of Ma’at, the Ten Commandments are stated as explicit rules, not suggestions. There is nothing discretionary about the Ten Commandments. Instead, they are very precise: “You shall not . . .” and “You shall . . . .” There are no archaeological or cultural reasons to indicate that the principles of Ma’at were incorporated into the Law of Moses; any insinuation that they were is mere speculation.

The most common argument linking the Mosaic Law and the principles of Ma’at relies on the fact that Ma’at worship predates Hebrew culture. Added to this is the fact that Moses was raised in Egypt. Therefore, the theory suggests, Moses simply adopted what he had learned in Egypt and formulated his own set of rules for the people he was leading. This reasoning is flawed due to a basic logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning “after this, therefore because of this.” That is, it’s illogical to assert that, given two pieces of literature, the latter must have been derived from the former. What’s more probable—and better supported by the evidence—is that much of Moses’ writing was intended to counter Egyptian spiritual concepts, not to imitate them.

It’s not surprising that an extensive list of moral principles such as those found in the principles of Ma’at would align with some of God’s fundamental moral laws for humanity. In fact, a frequently repeated theme of Scripture is that people possess a conscience, a testimony to the existence of God’s law inscribed on their hearts (see Romans 2:14-15). Romans 1:18–22 states that all individuals have adequate evidence in nature and in their own hearts to acknowledge God, even though they choose not to. As the world moves away from God and endeavors to establish its own moral standards, it’s not surprising to detect echoes of God’s original, innate morality.

The alleged connection between the forty-two precepts of Ma’at and the Ten Commandments is not frequently asserted by legitimate historians. Links between the two l

Lists are weak, contrived, and ultimately inconsequential to the issue of whether Moses brought down from Sinai a genuine message from God.