User:ZarathustraSay20/sandbox

For the article Rahab_(Egypt): Prior to the Medieval adoption of "Rahab," to mean demon or sea beast, the name also appears in Psalm: 104, Psalm 89; 5-12, as well as Job 38: 8-11 and Isaiah 51:9-10. Rahab, in these passages, take the meaning of primeval chaotic sea, multi-headed dragon or Leviathan. It can be assumed that long before Jewish mythos, the ancient Jews emulated the creation fables told by their predecessors. The Babylonians, for example, told of a thunder god, Marduk, and a Sea Beast, Tiamat, battling for supreme power over the other gods. It can be speculated that these two characters in the Babylonian myth, are parallel to the creation stories found in the passages of containing the name Rahab.

Abraham's Incestuous Marriage
There is strong evidence, through Biblical exegesis and semantics, that the union of Abraham and Sarah was actually incestuous with Sarah being Abraham's half-sister. For example, in Genesis 20: 13, Abraham, talking to Abimelech, alludes to Leviticus laws or the Holiness code, by using the the phrase "lovingkindness." The same word is found referring to the sin of incestuous relationships and can also take the alternative meaning of "disgrace." Abraham, in his discourse with Abimelech, could be openly confessing his "disgraceful" relations with his wife/sister Sarah but whichever translation of the word is taken, it shows Abraham's knowledge of the Holiness code and specifically the clauses pertaining to incest found within Leviticus.

Notes on Abraham's Incestuous Marriage
Abraham’s Incestuous Marriage with Sarah a Violation of the Holiness Code;

ABSTRACT

•	Sarah-Abraham’s half sister •	Violates the Holiness Code in Lev. 17 •	May foreshadow the relationship between David and his half sister Abigail. •	Wording and literary repetition may connect with the other incestuous relationships in the Hebrew Bible

1 •	Abraham reflects the words of Jeremiah, “and it will be good for you and you may live,” by saying to Sarah “…it be good for me, on account of you, and I may live on account of you.” •	“She is my sister” alludes to the Holiness code in Leviticus, which uses a similar word phrasing.

2 •	Teleological suspension of the ethical- Abraham’s lie •	Yahweh spares Abimelech for having ignorance and innocence towards the relationship of Abraham and Sarah.

3 •	The narrative of Lot and his daughters as well as Saul and his Nakedness both, semantically, give insights into the inconsistencies of Abraham and his relationship with Sarah. Lot and Saul=Shameful, Abraham and Sarah=Prophet.

4 •	Lovingkindness found in Genesis 20:13 alludes to the holiness scriptures in Leviticus 20:17, talking about incest. •	Lovingkindness is also the Janus word for disgrace, Abraham, in Genesis 20:13, could mean either •	Abimelech implies that Isaac is his son-lie to preserve his life just as Abraham lied to preserve his. •	“Covering of eyes”-parallels with the Judah narrative, Abimelech implies that Abraham and Sarah are incestuous like Judah and his daughters.

5 •	Abraham and Sarah’s incest foreshadows the sin of the siblings David and Abigail.

6 •	Royal union of Abraham and Sarah, taking on the traditions of the Egyptians and Phoenicians •	Laws in Leviticus say that incest is punishable by death, though it must be the punishment God sets in place and not of human courts.

"Covenant Forms in the Israelite Tradition" notes
-      Covenant is not necessary for family relationships but once many clans and groups solidify into one group, a formal agreement must be necessary.

-	It is speculated that there was a definite historical event where YHWH and the Israelites entered into a covenant (Exodus/ Israelites in the desert all with eclectic background and entered into to      : a covenant to create a single homogenous group to be identified with).

-     the monotheistic religion of the ancient Hebrews was idiosyncratic and created group solidarity.

-	Many near east cultures entered into to covenants, or oaths, with deities and let them evoke the treaties.

-	 Used in most ancient legal contracts and ordinary business contracts

-	Israelites were too primitive to develop the “covenant” idea originally so they adopted it from previous near east cultures.

-	Suzerainty treaty- Suzerain and Vassal. Vassal is obligated to the commands stipulated by the Suzerain.

-	Pa treaty- Two equal parties. Each is bound by identical stipulations.

-	Hebrew covenants strongly emulate ancient near east covenants. Followed stipulations given by YHWH, the delivery from Egypt was the historical prologue, and the Decalogue is the stipulations in which they must obey. Moses was not a party of the covenant, only a messenger. Blood sprinkled upon an altar is the ceremony to put the covenant in effect.

-	The ark was a portable sanctuary of the covenant between YHWH and the Hebrew. It was delicately handled and careful words were chosen around it (Vassal may not breach the covenant but if they do they will be subject to punishment).

-	New covenants were drawn up to bind a new generation (Deuteronomy).

-	The interest of the newly formed state has precedence over the religious rites and interests of clans or individuals. Possibly could have dissolved covenant form and the forgetting of the Mosaic covenant.

-	“book of law” was discovered in the Temple of Jerusalem (18th year of King Josiah). Regarded as the Deuteronomic laws.

-	Covenants: Identifies itself with “divine power which defeats the powers of chaos.”

“The covenant of grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East" notes
•	The Mosaic covenant is often paralleled to other near east judiciary treaty patterns (Suzerainty) but the covenant made between David and YHWH and Abraham and YHWH are considered relatively original.

•	Treaty- Preamble, historical intro, border delineations, stipulations, witnesses, blessings and curses.

•	Grant- Master-Servant obligations. Curses are directed towards those who violate the servant’s rights.

•	Grants provide rewards for good deeds.

•	Abrahamic and Davidic covenants = Grant
 * Abraham is given land for loyalty and good service and David is promised a Monastic Dynasty.

•	Both Neo-Assyrian and the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants use similar terminology.
 * “a whole heart” “stood before in truth” “walked with loyalty”

•	It was found that many near east cultures offered lands or “Houses” (family, clans, rule, Lordship) for loyal service and good deeds. These things were passed down to posterity and should forever be in the possession of the descendants of whom the grant was given to. Likewise, Abraham and his descendants were given the Promised Land and David and his descendants Lordship, “steadfast” for all of time. The suzerain also does not withdrawal the promises made making them eternal
 * Symbolized through the familial metaphor of a “step father - adopted son”

•	Covenants are enacted through symbolic sacrifices. The animals represent the transgressor of the covenant terms (put to death or tortured).

•	Priests were granted tithes for their loyalty, dedication and services.

Dissolving Covenant Form
Pressures from outside invaders coerced the loosely bound Israelite tribes to converge into Monarchial unity for stability, and solidarity. However, in this time of consolidation, the new State had to also unify the religious rites and traditions that were largely clan, family or individually based prior to the unification, to reduce possible dissension amongst those who believed the formation of a State would replace the direct governance from YHWH. Therefore the State merged with the covenant relation to ground legitimacy in the eyes of the populace. It was believed that to obey the law was to obey YHWH. Furthermore, it was believed that the King that was put into power, was ascended because of the dictates of YHWH and that this accession was the embodiment and fulfillment of the covenant prophesy between David and YWHH; entitling the Davidic line to the Monarchial throne. This, however, brought about a conflict between those who believed in the Davidic covenant and those who believed that YHWH could not support such a covenant because YHWH would not support all actions of the State. Resulting from this dilemma, both sides became aloof and the Davidic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were almost entirely forgotten.

Connecting the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants to Ancient Near Eastern Grants
Weinfield believes that similar terminology and wording can connect the Abrahamic Davidic covenants with ancient near grants as opposed to being largely similar to the more popular Mosaic covenant, which is Suzerainty. Weinfield goes on to argue that phrases talking about having “a whole heart” or having “walked after me [YHWH] with all his heart” strongly parallels with the neo-Assyrian grant language, which describes the recipient of a grant from a Sovereign, to have “walked with loyalty.” Furthermore, in Jeremiah, YHWH says, through prophetic metaphor, that David will be adopted as a son. Expressing legal and political relationships through familial phraseology was common amongst near eastern cultures. Babylonian contracts often expressed fathership and sonship, in their grants to actually mean a King to Vassal relationship respectively.

Feminist critique of the events preceding the Battle of Gibeah
Trible argues that the doorway the concubine crosses, to be handed over to the group of vicious males, is a dichotomy between two settings. Inwardly, represents stability and shelter, this is where the men remained, and an environment of wickedness, outside the threshold. The men in the narrative save themselves by handing the concubine over in order to remain sheltered indoors. The abstract argument being, men give the dispensable life of a woman in order to preserve theirs.

Analogous relationship between the Priestly class and the nation of Judah
It is commonly misconceived that the expulsion of the Gentile wives was a result of Judaean exceptionalism and nationalism. Hayes points out that the theory is not correct and the root cause is largely a fundamental and core belief found within the religious laws of the Judaeans. Ezra, Hayes explains, imagined Israel as divinely ordained to remain pure and holy, set apart and without the influence of other nations in Canaan, just as the Priestly division were commanded, by God, to practice marriage exclusivity.

Expulsion of the Gentiles in Ezra-Nehemiah
In reaction to contemporaries, who argue that Ezra-Nehemiah's purity ideology is a product of conservative "ritual" and "moral" purity, independently; Olyan claims that Ezra-Nehemiah's alien expulsion mandate was a result of a melding ideology taken from, the two seemingly independent ideas of, "moral" and "ritual" purity and remains exclusive to the particular narrative of Ezra-Nehemiah. "Moral" purity has familial implications. The influence of gentile women and culture upon Israelite men and posterity, through the eyes of ancient Judaean Priests, could turn Yahweh worshippers towards foreign deities and hedonism. "Ritual" purity stresses the importance of keeping to sacred practices dictated by revered predecessors and the Holy Scriptures. Olyan believes that Ezra's expulsion of the gentiles could also be linked with the idea that outside lineage would initially pollute the priestly bloodline, acting as an apparatus to destroy "right" ritual practice.