User:Adrugby/sandbox

I am a senior and I used to play rugby for the Miami. I also served 5 years on active duty before attending Miami.

Rahab wikipedia edit
Coogan discusses that Rahab is a deity but the Wikipedia article does not specifically declare him one. The Rahab Wikipedia article also does not mention Yahweh battling Rahab either, which would be beneficial for the readers to know.

For Rahab (Egypt)[Rahab (Egypt) Wikipedia- Rahab is a deity in the coogan book, however the Wikipedia page does not recognize him as this.

For Rahab (Egypt) article: On page 38 in Coogan he mentions Ptah the god who created other gods. However in the Wikipedia article Ptah they mention that he is the " god of craftsmen and architects". they also mention that he is the demiurge of memphis. In coogan there is no mention of memphis.Coogan, Michael D.

Interesting differences. I would recommend adding a citation to Coogan and paraphrase what sentence or sentences you would directly add to a Wikipedia page. AL2015 (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

2/16

Edits for wifes narrative
These both support the claim that there are different versions of the story but each may be altered. As we know this to be true these claims support the facts that there are different stories and they need to be clear in wikipedia.

"Other treatments of the wife-sisters narratives are more synchronic, exploring each as a version of one tale in its varieties". The stories behind the wife sisters narratives are similar and but resort to to three different versions. According to Nidtch there is one story that has many different versions, but there are inconsistencies and they all refer back to the same story.

"Instead of three versions of the same incident, these narratives are three different stories that share only the motif of the patriarch who lies about his wife to save himself". Biddle: "the endangered Ancestress" PP-601 2nd paragraph. According to Biddle, these are three different stories about the incident. This seems to be true as we read it, but

Mendenhall outline
A. Covenant forms in Israelite tradition

B. The nature of Covenant
 * The covenant must have been formed later on in history, after many of religious ideas were formed.
 * There is a major relationship between Yaweh and Israel that the covenant speaks of, An event of the setting at the time.


 * There is a set of procedures in the beginning, related to religion or known as oaths.
 * The form is translated from one culture to another, and from one language to another.
 * International relation oaths are upheld in the realm of human relations.
 * 3 major facts- first the Hittites did not come up with the covenant, many of the covenants were made with people of Syria, The material between the Hittites and biblical motions have already been discovered.
 * Suzerainty treaty established between two parties. It is binding between one vassal which took an oath of obedience.

C. Structure of the Covenant

Preamble- identifies the author of the covenant, informing of his titles and power.

The Historical Prologue- begins talking about the relationship between the two treaties. The suzerainty begins with what the king did for the vassal. in the parity treaty it mentions that little could be said, but neither could be regarded of the receipt of gifts or bound to obedience.

The Stipulations- talks about the obligations that are accepted by the vassal, and other foreign relationships to outside the Hittite empire. the parity between the vassals that were created by the king must not be changed.

List of gods as a witness- deities acted as witnesses to the contracts.

Curse and blessings formula- the only sanctions for the covenant are religious ones. In the case of breach the king would act out with military action.

D. The covenant of Joshua 24
 * the generation of moses and joshua no longer existed.
 * a new covenant was formed and became the basis for the new tribes.
 * There is no continuations of the Mosaic covenant.

E. Breakdown of the covenant


 * There was a need for a new king who was made by the convent
 * They are not sure if the 8th century was aware of the mosaic covenant.

F. Rediscovery of Moses


 * moses was finally rediscovered
 * the covenant of moses was harmonized that of Abraham gradually over the years.
 * New covenant founded by Jeremiah

Weinfield outline
A. Two types of covenants


 * Obligatory which is reflected in the Sinai. This is reflected between god and Israel. Also formulations formed in the near east.

B. Promissory type covenants with Abraham and David.


 * Belongs to the grant type, not the vassal type. Mainly gifts from Abraham to those who served their masters with excellence.
 * Davids relationship with god is couched.

C.The unconditional gift
 * The grants by David, and Abraham are much older and reflect the Hittite patterns of the grant.

D. The covenant with Abraham


 * God is the Suzerain who commits himself and swears to keep the promise.
 * It is accompanied by the torch and smoking oven.
 * There is a similar oath that occurs in Abba-EL
 * The animals in Alalah are sacrificed in the covenant are offerings.

E. The legal formulae in the covenant with Abraham


 * The formulae with Abraham is the exact same of that in the property of the near east.
 * the convent of David and Abraham are based on a common pattern and have the same historical literary antecedents.

F. The grant of Hebron to Caleb


 * to inform of the conquest of caleb, the gift was for his faithfulness during the mission

Weinfeld paragraphs
PG .193-194

Weinfield begins talking about David and how he is mentioned in the old testament. David is known in a few sources as the first born, and how many of gods decedents are alike, however being the first born is a much more significant role. There is a hebrew word mentioning that he was appointed which is his divine right and not one by luck. He was given land and how he shall refer to him as the "father". These pages mention and use words in a family setting to explain the relationship of David and the other states in an easier way. he explains how exactly David became to be known in the pentateuch however some parts are left with gaps making is difficult to understand.

Mendenhall and the Nature of the Covenant
Society has a set of rules that must be followed for there to be order. Much like the laws we have set in place to prevent speeding, or murder never the less this is merely the same concept. This is the same concept except they refer to the legal binding word as an "oath". He mentions that oaths are known in many other cultures and even other languages meaning most understand the complexity of this concept. The history of the covenant and oath go back a long time to before Babylonia and Assyria. The international covenants can be linked with the Hittite empire and some religious material using three specific facts. The first is that the Hittite empire did not discover the covenant but merely got it from mesoptamian sources. The second was the people of Syria were made by the covenants and that there was a similar form used for the treaty with Egypt. The last was that other ideas linking between the Hittite empire and religious material have already been discovered.

Tribal article, legally and socially not equivalent of a wife but seen as a slave
Basically what this is saying is that with the few laws there were at this time, she has no rights. Like most women at this time she is seen less than men, and has an even lower status than a wife. It mentions that she is " basically" a slave, but how is she anything other than that? She is there for his own entertainment or whatever else he wants to use her for. She does things for him without being told, which throws off the readers, is she a slave? or someone who chooses to do things for him? Throughout the article she has no name, which tells me that is shows she is not of importance in the story. She eventually leaves him, can she do that without being punished ? Since her father is a man how does he react about her behavior?

Hayes Article outline
1. the custom of endogamy 2. enmity with other groups 3. religious differences with other groups 4. racial differences with other groups 5. self preservations in times of threatened assimilation.
 * In the first few paragraphs Hayes is wondering is purity in ancient Israelite and jewish culture.
 * She feels that some of the impurities are only real in the second temple to tannaitic periods. It did not serve for older laws regulating intermarriage.
 * There are 5 rationales for what was probably the closest regulation on the prohibition of intermarriage:
 * main argument is that gentile ritual impurity is translated into physical contact to an israelite partner is not the same restriction on intermarriage in the second temple time period.
 * She talks about the importance of terminology of the terms used, that can be confused such as pure and impure, holy and profane.
 * In the ezra time period there are two ways that intermarriage was banned, first the overall scope, and the rationale way which referred to the holy seed.
 * The torah explains that intermarriage does not focus on the physical contact with a canaanite, but the contact with them will lead to israelite becoming more like the canaanites.
 * The text about intermarriage is unclear and that it supports the position of intermarriage as much as it prohibits it as well.
 * The mixtures of the holy seed of isreal becomes profane. This is the concern.

The paraphrase of impurity according to Hayes
In Hayes article the way that the term "holy seed" is used is that "seed" itself is very sacred. The intermingling of anything outside of the Judeans means that would make the"seed" then impure. The sources say that any physical interaction outside of the isrealites goes against what god created himself. There is a major mix up and non clarity between intermarriage and physical interaction. In the version of Ezra it was supported that intermarriage with gentiles is prohibited. For the version of Ezra In Hayes the issue is not a holiness of the blood line, but they do not want to see the "seed" be downgraded in any way. They want to keep the status of Israel holy according to Hayes.

Wright Article Paraphrase
In Wrights article his main issue is of course the literature of the text. The argument comes when Nehemiah notices that the Judeans were marrying people outside of their lands (exogamy) whose children spoke the same language. Although this came during the 52 days of the construction of the wall, we are not sure how he noticed the issue. The non clarity in the text according to Wright is if Ezra already outlawed Judean men not to marry any one outside of their land, then why is nehemiah noticing it thirteen years later. According to Wright the issue in Ezra 9-10 is in the verse 24, where it says that half of the children spoke another language and did not know the language of judah. Even though the issue in the text says it is not worried about the survival of the Judean language Nehemiah cannot endorse the exogamous marriage. After punishing the men, that is when he makes them take the oath however Wrights argument is if Nehemiah actually composed that text, in which he did not know a passage in Deuteronomy, then why does he compose an oath that does not match the issue that was in the previous verse.

Southwood about ethnicity in Ezra 9-10
Hello, I am a senior at Miami University taking part in my Hebrew Bible class.

Katherine Southwood makes some huge points in her article in how the terms, race, ethnicity, and nationalism are used throughout the text of Ezra 9-10. She points out that there are multiple problems not only inside the text but in work of the scholars as well. Although it is evident that the terms ethnicity and race have similarities one is just a secondary term of another. This however does not make the text easily translated and makes the expression of those terms as Southwood puts it not " appropriate" on any level. More of the issue lies with a bigger picture such as people from the land are not really different from those who have the "holy seed" since there are so many similarities that there seems to be a common attraction between the two. The argument there is that the writers of the text focus more on the the difference between the "people of the land" and the "Holy seed" than explaining the physical difference such as skin color, hair color. In the text the term ethnicity may be the best to describe the people in general, but in terms of the intermarriage Southwood feels that nationalism and ethnicity both do justice. Using the term race she claims is not needed and is used in a negative manner. Adrugby (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)