User:Dkcincy/sandbox

Dylan's Sandbox

I am looking at editing the wiki page on Rahab. Inserting a few of the points that Coogan talks briefly about on page 40. Mentioning how Rahab was not only a sea monster but was also believed to have been involved before the creation of earth.

Underneath the section labeled "Jewish folklore" I planned on adding a sentence that goes something along he lines of "Rahab has also been mentioned in connection with Biblical Creation, that Rahab was destroyed by the creator before he began his work of creation."


 * User:Dkcincy, hi. you didn't finish your last sentence? And I'm testing the notifications of a sandbox. ProfGray (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:ProfGray, Yeah I need to finish it, I typed it then started to try and learn how to better navigate through other peoples' sandboxes and pages. Dkcincy (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Wife-Sister Narrative
In the article "Studies in the Book of Genesis" the major theme was how stories in Genesis mirrored other stories in Israel's history. One example cited to support this theme was the wife-sister narratives. It stated in relation to the similarities of the three wife-sister narratives; "There has been one version which was copied, revised and adapted, resulting in the present three versions of this narrative" (De Hoop, 366).


 * User:Dkcincy, I would maybe clarify the first sentence to say that 'A major theme of the paper "Studies in the Book of Genesis" was how stories in Genesis mirrored stories in Israel's history.' And then maybe go on to say how this is related to the Wife-Sister Narratives. Maybe paraphrasing would clarify the meaning of the quotation further as well! Good luck on your editing! Slfirme (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Slfirme, Thanks! appreciate it. Dkcincy (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendenhall Notes
•	In terms of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’s descendants, no need for covenant. Tied together by family bonds.

•	In past, hard to define an event binding tribes to God.

•	Covenant held upheld by an oath make it a binding contract.

•	Israelite covenant closely resemble Hittite covenants.

•	2 types of covenants in Hittite Empire. Suzerainty, only the lesser group must uphold obligations. Or pa, where both parties must uphold obligations.

•	Fact that 3 books (Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua) are connected to legal traditions supports that we are preserving covenant between Israel and Yahweh.

•	Phases to suzerainty covenant in times of Hittite Empire (1450-1200 B.C.): o	Preamble: Identifies author and genealogy. o	Historical Prologue: Identifies past relationship of parties. o	Stipulations: Identifies obligations upon and accepted by vassal. o	Provision for deposit in temple and public readings: Inform entire nation of vassal of obligations and promote the relationship between vassal and ruling king. o	List of Gods and witnesses: Who all witnessed and which Gods witnessed. o	Curses and Blessings: Actions of Gods if covenant is upheld or breached. o	Also Oath by vassal and a ceremony with the oath. •	Decalogue falls into this form as does covenant in Joshua narrative. •	Covenant with Abraham seen as a different form. •	The Decalogue caused there to be no room for treaties with other nations. Would break covenant with God.

Weinfeld Notes
•	2 Types of covenants in Old Testament

o	Obligatory – God with Israel is an example o	Promissory – Abraham and David covenants

•	Political treaties are shown in Hittite Empire in royal grants. Classical form is shown in Babylonian documents. •	Both include much of the same structure.

•	Treaties – Obligation of vassal to suzerain. Protects rights of the suzerain. Document for future.

•	Grant – Obligation of master to servant. Protects rights of the servant. Reward for servant.

•	Abraham and David treaties with God are both the grant type. Terminology very close to Assyrian grants. •	Noah’s covenant is an example of a grant. He was rewarded for his loyalty.

•	Before providing a grant the suzerain proclaims who he is.

•	David and Abraham grants show form of Assyrian covenants but the promises in them show more towards Hittite pattern for grants of much older time.

•	The word house in these covenants means dynasty

•	David’s ability to appoint a “first born” not a right gained by nature

•	Abraham covenant. Oath accompanied by either slaughtering of lamb or holding a torch

•	“I will be your God and you shall be my people” shows Abraham’s covenant was a priestly covenant.

•	Grant of priesthood is an eternal grant.

Mendenhall - Joshua's Covenant
In regards to Joshua's Covenant, Mendenhall points out that this covenant does follow the traditional treaty form for covenants as used by Moses. Though it follows the same form two sections are missing from it. The two missing sections are the stipulations and the blessings and curses. Mendenhall also points out that this new covenant between God and Joshua takes the place of God's older covenant with Moses. Mendenhall points out that this makes sense due to the fact that God is now dealing with a completely different generation that is in very different circumstances. This fact however is not for sure due to the fact that the stipulations of the covenant are unknown.

Dkcincy, just a few suggestions:
 * Make sure the wording is formal, "the fact is not for sure due to the fact..." (also make sure that the sentence isn't awkwardly worded.
 * Also make sure that you're not relying on the Mendenhall too much. Make sure that you're not presenting Mendenhall's argument as fact.

Grahamcrackered (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Weinfeld - Abraham's Covenant
M. Weinfeld talks about the formation of God's covenant with Abraham. In this covenant God takes on the role of the suzerain and Abraham takes on the role of the vassal. God has the obligation to keep his promise to Abraham which is to keep Abraham's descendants as God's chosen people and be their God. When taking this oath we see that God is accompanied by a smoking oven and a torch. These were objects used in the procedure of taking an oath much like oaths that involved sacrificing animals while taking the oath. God acts as the suzerain power and is the party of the covenant accompanied by the required action that comes with the oath whether it be fire or animals in the sacrificial oaths. In doing this, God is the party taking upon the curse if he does not uphold his obligation. Through history there were also many instances where the vassal was the one who performed the different acts and took the curse upon them.

Relating Unnamed Woman Article to Other Biblical Stories
-Page 74 references story of Lot the way the men of the town wanted to violate the visitors sexually. In both stories the homeowner offered his virgin daughter to the men to keep them away from the guests. Very similar stories

-Page 80 references the story of Abraham and Isaac. Just as Abraham took the knife planning to sacrifice Isaac, the Levite takes the knife to cut up the concubine.

-Page 84 & 85 compares the different ways the concubine was treated as a woman to the way Hannah was treated around the same time in the same region.

-Page 85 Also compares the different ways the concubine was treated as a woman to the ways Ruth and Naomi were treated. Also around the same time and region.

-Page 86 talks about the similar ways God addresses Israel in this story and the book of Hosea.

Haynes Outline

 * Main reason for not allowing marriage with Gentiles is because it will lead to them and offspring turning from God
 * Impure means not accepted by the culture. Pure is accepted
 * Profane means not belonging to God. Holy belongs to God
 * Big difference between Holy/Profane and Pure/Impure
 * Specific tribes are singled out by God as not never being allowed to marry
 * Ammonite and Moabite descendants will never be allowed to congregate with the Lord
 * The D source is responsible for putting the ban on intermarriage
 * Intermarriage is seen as making the holy seed of Israel profane

Paraphrasing Gentile Incorporation into Israel in Ezra-Nehemiah
Peter Lau analyzes how it's possible for Gentiles to be included as part of Israel in Ezra and Nehemiah. Mr. Lau compares and contrasts the events in Ezra and Nehemiah to the events in Exodus after the Israelites escape from Egypt. Both of these books involve the people of Israel returning to their own land. In Exodus, they leave Egypt to go to their promised land. In Ezra and Nehemiah, they are returning to Israel from exile. This is all background to show how the books are related. Lau's main point is how and if Gentiles can be included in the nation of Israel. These questions are directly related to the celebration of Passover. Passover was seen as a way to separate true Israelites from non Israelites. Only true Israelites partook in Passover. If someone wasn't an Israelite they could still become part of the nation of Israel if they devoted themselves to the Israelite God, followed the Torah, and were circumcised. In Exodus this was mainly talking about slaves, and other foreigners who had escaped Egypt with the Israelites. In Ezra and Nehemiah this also related to foreigners who came back to Israel with the Israelites when they returned from exile. Lau also points out that Ezra showed strong beliefs toward the people of Israel not marrying Gentiles. Lau argues that this was to keep the Israelites from turning from God. It was all about keeping the Israelites following God and not turning toward other Gods. So Lau points out that if the Gentiles do what is required and partake in Passover to become part of Israel, they are no longer seen as outsiders.