Talk:Mosaic covenant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article title[edit]

I'm a Jew who has studied the Torah and other aspects of the religion, and taken part in (practiced, observed) the religion, to a fair extent, and I have never before come across the term "Mosaic covenant." What's the relationship of this term to mosaic? Seems a bizarre term, is all I am saying. LordAmeth (talk) 08:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a fairly standard scholarly term. The work Mosaic comes from Moses. OliAtlason (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Proselytes and the Mosaic Covenant[edit]

My questioning the addition of proselytes was not denying the proselytes, but that the Covenant was made between God and the Israelites only. For now the current version is acceptable. Editor2020 (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talks around the subject.[edit]

It says stuff like: "The establishment and stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant..." but never hints, much less explains what the terms of the covenant are. This should be in the Lead: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section).
-- (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Covenant Forms in Israel[edit]

According to Mendenhall, the covenant was not just an idea, but actually an historical event. This event was the formation of the covenant community. Wandering the desert, the clans left Egypt following Moses. These people were all of different backgrounds, containing no status in any social community. With all these circumstances they formed their own community by a covenant whose texts turned into the Decalogue. The Israelite's did not bind themselves to Moses as their leader though and Moses was not a part of the covenant. Moses was just seen as a historical figure of some type sent as a messenger. The Israelite's followed the form of the suzerainty treaty and were bound to obey stipulations that were set by Yahweh, not Moses. [1]AL2015 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Adding historical/regional context to the Mosaic covenant[edit]

Hi, I'm a student at Miami University in a class about the Hebrew Bible. I found some information in an article by George E. Mendenhall about Hittite suzerainty treaties and how they compare to the Mosaic covenant (particularly the Decalogue), and I think it would add some interesting context to this article. Sctimmons (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Rediscovering the Mosaic Covenant[edit]

I'm a university student who's taking a class about the Hebrew Bible. In an article written by George E. Mendenhall the Mosaic Covenant is brought back during the reign of King Josiah. Moses is viewed as a representative of Yahweh and his status is symbolized through being a first person speaker in the new covenant. [2] kk_1291 (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Covenant example[edit]

I think this article could benefit from having an example of what kind of covenants were found in the Ancient Near East. For example, the covenant made between God and Abraham, with the decalogue, would be informative.

A treaty is an agreement between two groups, one being of a higher power than the other. The suizerain, the masters, reaped the benefits of the agreement and the vassal, servants, would have the obligation to fulfill the stipulations that are presented in the treaty. If the treaty was broken for any reason, the blame was put on the servants and they were cursed, according to scholar M. Weinfeld. [3] One group that is known for being the first to document this type of agreement was the Hittites. The purpose of this treaty was to ensure future loyalty and alliance of the vassal since the suzerain had previously done favors for them. This is the type of treaty made with Abraham when God presents him with the Decalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TWloveandhonor (talkcontribs) 17:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this paragraph gives a good understanding of a treaty. You represent what Weinfeld was saying. It is a little confusing containing more then one topic, but it shows the overall picture behind the covenant between God and Abraham. If you want to try to focus it more on one topic I would either talk more about treaties in general and present support or focus on the covenant between God and Abraham. Overall, I think it a good paraphrase of the main point Weinfeld was trying to prove. AL2015 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
TWloveandhonor, your paragraph may work on its own, but please look how it is placed in the article. (I'm not sure why you didn't put it under the heading of historical-scholarship, but anyway….) It follows the lead, and goes right into the issue of treaty, without any way for the reader to know how the Mosaic covenant is connected to the notion of treaty. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional Perspective[edit]

I'm currently a student studying the Old Testament utilizing an academic approach. That being said, I have been studying Mendenhall and Weinfeld's work regarding their research on biblical covenants. I think it's important to mention that despite varying theories pertaining to the creation of covenants, there are two main types of covenants exposed throughout the Toarah. The two covenants include: 1. an obligatory covenant, or "treaty" as evidenced through the covenant between Yahweh and Israel & 2. a promissory covenant, or "royal grant" as evidenced by the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant. Sunshine619 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate, generally a mess[edit]

An article with so many scholars commenting shouldn't have such glaring errors as "As stated in the bible, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the descendants of Israel." Can someone please clean this whole thing up? Bervin61 (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mendenhall, George (September 1954). "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition". The Biblical Archaeologists. Vol. 17 (3): 62–66. 
  2. ^ Mendenhall, George E. "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition". 17 (3): 73–75. 
  3. ^ Weinfeld, M. "The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient near East". Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 90, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1970), pp. 184-203.