Biblical Parallels Index – Shemot 19

• Use the Tanakh Lab to compare the two sets of chapters from a linguistic perspective. Some of the differences between the accounts relate to the stated goal of the experience, the role of Moshe as intermediary and as lawgiver, and the emphasis (or lack thereof) on hearing but not seeing God.

• See Ma'amad Har Sinai in Shemot and Devarim for a table comparing the two accounts and analysis of the differences.  The articles suggests that on the eve of the people's entry into the land, Moshe had two fundamental concerns regarding the nation. He feared that with foreign influences, they would stop believing in Hashem and turn to other gods, and additionally, that even if they retained belief, they would question the authority of the laws transmitted via Moshe and be lax in their observance.  This agenda might account for the unique features of Moshe's retelling of the episode in Devarim 4-5.

Several articles focus more specifically on Moshe's role as an intermediary during revelation. In Sefer Shemot this role is emphasized, while in Devarim, in contrast, several verses highlight how Ma'amad Har Sinai a direct encounter with the Divine.
See The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe?

• See The Decalogue: Direct From Hashem or Via Moshe? for an overview of commentators’ approaches to this issue, ranging from those who believe that all of the Aseret Hadibrot were given through Moshe as an intermediary to those who believe that all of them were revealed directly to the nation.
• See The Four Stages of Ma’amad Har Sinai, by R. Menachem Leibtag, for analysis of the approaches of Rashi, Ramban, and Ibn Ezra to reconciling the various verses and a theory about how the ambiguity of this narrative reflects the fundamental tension within man’s encounter with Hashem. On one hand, man strives for a  direct "face to face encounter", yet in reality fear often dominates and he cannot handle it.
• See זכרון מעמד הר סיני בנאותו של משה רבנו, by R. Tamir Granot, which compares and contrasts the ways that the Torah describes the experience of revelation in Shemot and Devarim, noting that in the former there is an emphasis on Moshe's mediating role and in Devarim revelation is framed as a "face to face" encounter. He explains that in Shemot, right after witnessing the miracles of the Exodus, the people did not need further proof of Hashem's existence, but rather proof of Moshe's status as prophet. In the fortieth year, in contrast, Moshe's role was obvious, but on the eve of entry into Israel, they needed to boost their belief in Hashem for the future. The differences further reflect two paths toward the development of faith. In Shemot, belief is presented as stemming from an objective, external experience of Hashem's revelation, while in Devarim it comes from an internal experience, a memory of the event as transmitted by the prophet and felt by each individual.

• Concordance – A concordance search reveals that the word נשר appears just a handful of times in Torah, but is used twice as a metaphor for Hashem's interactions with the nation.  In both Shemot 19:4 and Devarim 32:11, the nation is depicted as being carried on eagle's wings. Devarim 32, though, elaborates on the metaphor also speaking of the eagle hovering over its nest.

• Ibn Ezra equates the two metaphors and in his comments on Devarim 32:11, explaining that the imagery reflects the majesty and speed with which they left Egypt.

• See “Upon the Wings of Eagles” and “Under the Wings of the Shekhinah”: Poetry, Conversion, and the Memorial Prayer by R. Yaakov Jaffe. This article explores different variations of the metaphor of eagles’ wings through the interpretations of classical commentators, relating these ideas to the liturgical use of this image.

• Concordance – Use the concordance to find where "fire" appears in Tanakh and what roles it plays. Previously fire has appeared in the context of the covenant between the pieces, the destruction of Sedom, the plagues, and the pillar of cloud and fire that led the Israelites in the desert. Subsequently in the Torah it appears many times as well, often in the context of divine wrath and destruction.

• See The Eternal Flame, by R. David Silverberg, for an analysis of consuming fire as a symbol of divine punishment and non-destructive fire as a symbol of Hashem’s presence.
• See קול אלקים מדבר מתוך האש, by R. Amnon Bazak, for analysis of how Torah’s descriptions of the fire of Sinai in Shemot and Devarim are meant to impart three fundamental religious beliefs: God’s incorporeality, the prohibition of idolatry, and the truth of Moshe’s prophecy.