User talk:ZarathustraSay20/sandbox

Your item about Rahab etc looks good with the footnote. But if this is a quote, be sure to put it in " " or Q-Q as recommended by Lipson.

Glad to see you working so smoothly with Wikipedia. ProfGray (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wife-sister… incestuous
Hi. I'd avoid endorsing a scholarly POV with "strong evidence" or similar wording. Or something like: Hepner believes there is strong evidence… Or, since it's a controversial view, lay out the evidence first and then sum up by giving the scholar's POV (and not sounding as if it is WIkipedia's). Is this helpful? Your thoughts or questions? ProfGray (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mendenhall
Hi. It's hard to discern the overall argument and logic from your outline. (Seeing trees but not the forest.) Can you tweak it and improve it a bit? ProfGray (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

peer review of Mendenhall and Weinfeld paragraphs
Just to get started...it would be helpful if you attributed more of the arguments in your paragraphs to the specific authors, because omitting these attributions gives the perception that these arguments are facts. Sctimmons (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Edits on Mendenhall:
 * Some of the words that you chose are somewhat normative. For example, "coerced" in the first sentence may not be the best choice; "Pressures from outside invaders led the loosely bound Israelite tribes..." uses a little more NPOV. I'm also not sure about your use of the word "aloof" in the last sentence of this paragraph.
 * There are several words that you have capitalized, and I'm not sure that it's necessary. Examples: State, Monarchial (which is spelled "monarchical"), King. (Another option is to use the term "Israel" rather than "state)
 * Your sentences can be a little wordy. You should try to streamline your thoughts, or break up sentences that run on too long.
 * You need to make it more clear that the first covenant you mention is the Mosaic covenant. Here's a possible reworking of the sentence that begins with "Therefore the State...": "Therefore, these loosely bound tribes merged under the Mosaic covenant to legitimize their unity."
 * I believe that Wikipedia style methods use the term "God" instead of "Yahweh" or "YHWH."

Here is your paragraph, as I would edit it myself:

According to Mendhenhall, pressures from outside invaders led the loosely bound Israelite tribes to converge into monarchical unity for stability and solidarity. He also argues that during this consolidation, the new state also had to unify the religious traditions that belonged to the different groups to prevent dissent from those who might believe that the formation of a state would replace direct governance from God. Therefore, Mendenhall continues, these loosely bound tribes merged under the Mosaic covenant to legitimize their unity. They believed that to obey the law was to obey God. They also believed that the king was put into power as a result of God's benefaction, and that this accession was the fulfillment of God's promise of dynasty to David. Mendenhall also notes that a conflict arose between those who believed in the Davidic covenant, and those who believed that God would not support all actions of the state. As a result, both sides became aloof (?), and the Davidic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were almost entirely forgotten.

Edits on Weinfeld:
 * You misspelled "Weinfeld" a couple times in your paragraph
 * There are occasionally words missing, such as "and" in between "Abrahamic" and "Davidic" and "Eastern" between "Near" and "grant" in the first sentence
 * Some sentences are a little wordy and could be streamlined
 * There are some words that are capitalized that shouldn't be: Suzerainty, Sovereign, King, Vassal
 * Like in the Mendenhall paragraph, you should use "God" instead of "YHWH"
 * Be careful of normative words and phrases, such as the "more popular" Mosaic covenant

Here is a reworking of your paragraph that reflects some of my edits:

Weinfeld believes that similar terminology and wording can connect the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants with ancient Near Eastern grants, as opposed to being largely similar to the Mosaic covenant, which, according to Weinfeld, is an example of a suzerainty treaty. He goes on to argue that phrases about having a "whole heart" or having "walked after me [God] with all his heart" strongly parallels with Neo-Assyrian grant language, such as "walked with royalty." He further argues that in Jeremiah, God uses prophetic metaphor to say that David will be adopted as a son. Expressing legal and political relationships through familial phraseology was common among Near Eastern cultures. Babylonian contracts often expressed fathership and sonship in their grants to actually mean a king to vassal relationship. Sctimmons (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Trible
Good work, fine paraphrase and captures a key point. Be in touch with your team about how this kind of paragraph will enable you all to present Trible's analysis. Thanks!! ProfGray (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)