User:Slfirme/sandbox

Coogan Citation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Babel: To edit in the portion about the pun of "babble" that occurs in both Hebrew and English.

Under Etymology at the end of the paragraph-> The pun with the word 'Babel' exists in both the Hebrew and English versions, and the author intended it to be this way. Wordplay (though not etymologically correct) was a characteristic of the authoring J source. <Coogan, Michael David. The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. THIRD ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014.="" />

Proposed edit to Wife Sister Narratives: (right before the main heading 'Jewish and Christian interpretations.')

From the perspective of source criticism, these three accounts would appear to be variations on the same theme, with the oldest explication being that in Gen. 12.^{[1] (from the article itself)}

In the past, the first and third accounts have been attributed to the Yahwist source (or J source), and the second account has been attributed to the Elohist source (or the E source) via source criticism. However, it has also been proposed that similarities between these narratives is because they are oral variations of one original story. Recently, it has been thought that the second and third accounts were based on and had knowledge of the first account.

Notes on Mendenhall

Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition

• Relationship between God and man is established by a covenant, and this is the basis for the 2 parts of the Bible in Christian tradition.
• There is a question as to the pre-Mosaic relationships that existed between the various groups that became Israel.
• If relationship was only because of the blood ties of the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, a covenant would most likely not have been needed.
• Difficult to maintain that there were blood-ties close enough to bind Israel together.
• Covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel was an event that had a definite historical setting and surprising historical consequences.
• A suzerainty treaty was used here: a great kind bound his vassals to faithfulness and obedience to himself.
• Oaths: procedures by which one can guarantee promises made.
• Sometimes, legal procedures of the society can guarantee contracts.
• It seems likely that covenants were upheld by oaths, especially because it seems that these must go back many centuries, if not millennia, before (p. 53).
• Covenants from the Hittite Empire (1420-1200 BC) were studied.
• Differences in treaties can be that only the vassal is obligated to comply or both parties are obligated to comply. (suzerainty treaties vs parity treaties)
• Contracts/covenants were translated to be "oaths or bonds"
• "I-Thou" form: thought of as a personal form of a treaty in the case of the Hittite king directly to the vassal.
• Treaties often included many stipulations, ie. loyalty, parity between vassals, responding to the suzerain, etc.
• Vassal could rule as he saw fit though
• Biblical references preserve many different types of covenants.
• Thought that there actually was a covenant relationship as the basis of the system- it was the only way that small political groups could hope to have any power.
• Question of why Israelite federation has such an impact, whereas others fell apart in a short time.
• Apparently attributed to the diversity and the "mixed multitude" of people that were then formed into a new community by a covenant.
• Other motifs that receive new meanings in light of covenants. Eg. the traditions of "murmerings."
• Last 3 elements of the Hittite form are lacking: no provision for sanctuary, no list of witnesses, no curses/blessings (except in the prohibition of other deities) in the Decalogue.
• Covenant of Joshua: written in the "I-Thou" form, some stipulations are missing, oath formula, historical prologue, people are witnesses to covenant, curse/blessing section absent.
• The covenant form can be broken down... Older religious traditions were a tremendous contributor to the feelings of unity in a monarchy.
• Kings were made kings by covenant and Israel was bound by oath to acknowledge and obey a king.
• Harmonization of two covenant traditions means that there had to be a great emphasis on divine forgiveness, and this becomes the foundation for the New Covenant predicted by Jeremiah (p. 75).
• Harmonization is then possible and Israel can be preserved and protected.
• Theme: delivery from bondage by God is not only an act of political oppression, but also a figurative one where God is delivering people from the bondage of sin.
• This covenant is established with the gathering of a small group of people in the Upper room.

Weinfeld Notes

• Cassuto theorized that the gifts given to Abraham by Abimalech and Pharaoh were in accordance to the law.

• The texts do not mention an oath.

• Genesis scroll uncovered that gave evidence for this claim: that there was in fact an oath and then also the monetary compensation that is mentioned in the current text.

• Difference in time period between the Assyrian law and the story.

• Compensation for keeping another's wife for a certain amount of time was prevalent in the Ancient Near East (Not necessarily attributable to the Assyrians.)

• Knowing that a woman was married was the key factor here.

• If they had known that she was married, it would have been considered a trespass to take Sarai.

• If the man didn't know a woman was married, it made no legal difference if he did or did not sleep with her.

• Pharaoh gives gifts before taking Sarai, which gives it the character of a bridal gift or a dowry. Abimelech gives the gifts after returning her to Abram.

• Author transferred the gift-giving to be at the beginning.

• Mention of the oath gives an analogy to Assyrian law, but would have to explain the 1500 year difference between the documents.

Weinfeld Outline- Introduction

1. There are two types of covenants that occur in the Old Testament.

a. obligatory type is found in the Sinai covenant.

b. promissory type reflected in covenants with Abraham and David.

i. Based on the "royal grant"

ii. Suzerain-vassal relationship

iii. Excellence in serving masters

2. Two types of official judicial documents were used at this time.

a. political treaty

i. e.g. in the Hittite Empire

b. royal grant

i. the classical form that occurs in Babylonian documents.

c. Both preserve similar elements: historical introduction, border delineations, stipulations, witnesses, blessings, and curses.

d. Differences between the two

i. obligation of vassal to master in political treaty vs. obligation of master to servant in the royal grant.

ii. the treaty protects the rights of the master vs. the royal grant protects the rights of the servant.

3. The covenants with Abraham and David are the grant type and not the vassal type.

a. covenants are gifts bestowed on people who are loyal servants.

b. Terminology in these grants is similar to the terminology used in Assyrian grants.

c. Notion of "perfect service" is found among Assyrian grants and also in Davidic traditions.

i. Notion of keeping commandments, rules, and teachings.

d. Noah was also rewarded by God for his loyalty.

4. The phrases that describe David's loyalty are more similar to the neo-Assyrian grant terminology.

a. E.g. Walking before in truth, loyalty, and uprightness of heart, walking after with all of one's heart.

b. Loyal service is portrayed as the reward for which a gift was given.

5. There is correspondence between Hebrew phrases and Ugaritic phrases.

a. Many of these expressions are similar in both literal and figurative meanings.

6. Because we are aware of different phrasings, we can then use this information to better understand certain biblical passages.

a. E.g. In Psalm 132, "his humility" was the mistaken meaning for a passage actually meaning "his submissiveness or devotion."

i. This describes David's loyalty more accurately so that the grant can be better bestowed upon him.

b. God's grant to the patriarchs is expressed to be the equivalent of the Assyrian grant.

7. The correspondence of the phrasing between the deuteronomic literature and the Neo-Assyrian documents is prominent in how is shows God's benevolence.

a. "God returns the kindness to the one who serves in obedience."

b. The grant is a good example of the benevolence of the master in rewarding a faithful servant.

8. The same word is used for both the grant and the treaty with the Hittites, but in the P and D sources, they become more distinct. 9. The covenant by the Priestly author is not the sworn obligation of the vassal, but rather God promises to establish a steadfast relationship with the people.

Paragraph about Introduction of Weinfeld

There are two major types of covenants in the Hebrew Bible, including the obligatory type and the promissory type. The obligatory covenant is more common with the Hittite peoples, and is more concerned about the relationship between to parties of equal standing. In contrast, the promissory type of covenant is used in the covenants with Abraham and David, and focuses on the relationship between the suzerain and the vassal and is similar to the "royal grant" type of legal document. The royal grant is similar in that both these covenants and the legal documents contain variations of the following elements: historical introduction, border delineations, stipulations, witnesses, blessings, and curses. In addition, the focus for the royal grants was how the master could reward a servant for being loyal. This was the case with David and Abraham both, in addition to Noah as well. Particularly with David, the book of Psalms established his "perfect servanthood," and emphasizes that royal grant was better able to be bestowed on such a person with exceptional loyalty and service. Ultimately, Weinfeld discusses how "God returns the kindness to the one who serves in obedience," and both the Hebrew and the Ugaritic texts emphasize God's benevolence and promise to establish a steadfast relationship with the people of Israel.