User:Sctimmons/sandbox

For Battle of Gibeah

According to Trible, the choice of words in this story hold a great deal of significance. This is especially seen in the differentiation between singular and plural verbs: "And his father-in-law, the father of the young woman, made him stay; and he remained with him three days; so they ate and drank and spent the night. On the fourth day they got up early in the morning, and he arose to go." Trible suggests that the change from they to he excludes the woman from the action.

Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as grants (Weinfeld)

The Abrahamic and Davidic covenants closely resemble grants, a type of treaty used in Hittite and other ancient cultures. These covenants follow the pattern seen in grants: because Abraham and David were loyal, faithful servants of God, God has given them gifts. Abraham is given land, and God promises David a dynasty. Further underlying the idea that these covenants were grant-like in nature is the similar language used in both. In the grant of Ashurbanipal, an Assyrian, to his servant Bulta, he describes Bulta's loyalty with the phrase "kept the charge of my kinship." Abraham similarly kept God's charge in Genesis 26: 4-5: "I will give to your descendants all these lands...inasmuch as Abraham obeyed me and kept my charge, my commandments, my rules and my teachings."

User:Sctimmons, I would suggest separating your second sentence connecting "grants" and the events being described as "grant-like." Though I believe this sentence is grammatically correct, It seems that this sentence can be a bit convoluted when read. I also would suggest adding a conclusion sentence just to give a bit more lucidity to your paragraph. ZarathustraSay20 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Suzerain/vassal relationships in the Mosaic covenant (Mendenhall)

Hittite suzerainty treaties, established between an emperor (suzerain) and inferior king (vassal), were defined by several important elements. The treaties were based on past aid or good fortune that the suzerain had previously delivered unto the vassal and the obligations that the vassal, therefore, had to the suzerain. This foundation for a treaty relationship is similar to the foundation for the Mosaic covenant and the Decalogue. God had delivered the Israelites from Egypt in the Exodus, and they therefore are obligated to follow the commandments in the Decalogue. As the vassal, God has no further obligations towards the Israelites—but it’s implied that God will continue to protect them as a result of the covenant.

User:Sctimmons I suggest supporting the claim connecting the the vassal/suzerain relationships and the Covenants. Adding mutual, textual evidence found within the Bible and the ancient near east treaties, connecting the two, may tie the argument together neatly. ZarathustraSay20 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For Genealogies of Genesis: The Priestly source illustrates history in Genesis by compiling the genealogy beginning with the "generations of the heavens and the earth" and continuing through Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac to the descendants of Jacob's son Esau. Jacob's descendants are listed in Genesis 46:8-27, beginning with the phrase "these are the names."

For Wife–sister narratives in the Book of Genesis:

Political marriages were common occurrences in the Near East during the second and first millennia B.C.E., which typically meant that a resident alien would offer one of his daughters to the monarch as a diplomatic action and to protect himself and his family. In every wife-sister narrative found in the Book of Genesis, Abraham and Isaac are traveling in foreign territory without any daughters to offer the local ruler. Therefore, in declaring that their wives were actually sisters, they attempted to create similar diplomatic relationships.

Outline of Mendenhall's "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition"

The terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" refer to the idea that the relationship between God and his people is defined by a covenant between them, but the origin of the idea of such a covenant is up for debate. Discussing covenants as a basis for religion means that looking at ancient legal documents could be helpful for learning more about the origins of that religion. The question is less what religion existed before Moses, and more about what the ties between the different groups that would become the Israelites were like before Moses. It is more likely that Israel's solidarity was formed through a covenant than through shared bloodlines or a close-knit tribal connection. Problems: what covenant would link the people of Israel while simultaneously establishing Yahweh as their god?, where did the Israelite sense of law and justice, morality and ethic come from?, Israelite monotheism vs. the polytheism of surrounding ancient cultures These problems might be resolved with better understanding of the ancient suzerainty treaty The Nature of Covenant All ancient covenants were based on oaths, built-in requests for gods to punish offenders if they disobey the covenant Oaths were particularly important in international covenants, because there was little to bind two nations together besides the impending punishment from gods Hittite covenants are a window into the world of ancient international covenants for these reasons: # The Hittites didn't create the covenant system themselves, but borrowed it from other neighboring societies # Many of the Hittite covenants were made with people near the Israelites # There are several other comparisons between the Hittites and the Israelites The best argument against the idea that Israelites were familiar with the covenant form that surrounded them is that they weren't sophisticated enough to understand or know about the system, but that's a hypothesis that needs to be tested to be relevant to this discussion There were two types of covenant: suzerainty and parity * Suzerainty: only the inferior participant is bound by an oath, obligated to obey superior * Parity: actually two treaties, identical obligations in both directions Suzerainty treaties were only binding for the vassal: for the suzerain to have obligations would mean that they would lose sovereignty; vassal must trust suzerain's benevolence Treaties weren't put into effect just because they were written; they required some action to become real. The Structure of the Covenant There was no singular term for a contract or a covenant: the most commonly used phrase was "oaths and bonds"; specific obligations were called the "words" of the suzerain, because a great king's words were commandments Six elements of Hittite treaty texts (before the time of Moses): # Preamble: introduces author, genealogy, emphasizes power # Historical prologue: describes all the good fortune that the kings has brought to the vassal; usually very historically accurate. All these past good deeds are the reason for the vassal to pledge obedience in the future. "I-Thou" form suggests personal rather than legal relationship # Stipulations: Obligations of the vassal * prohibit of relationships outside the Hittite Empire * vassals are equal in status under the king * vassal must provide military support whenever the king needs it * vassal may not spread rumors about the king; this leads to rebellion * vassal may not harbor refugees * debates between vassals will be decided by suzerain # Provision for deposit in the temple and periodic public reading: helped inform the whole vassal state of their obligations to emperor, increase respect for vassal king because of relationship with emperor # List of gods as witnesses: included both Hittite and local gods who would punish the vassal if the obligations were not met # Curses and blessings formula: while an act of disobedience would surely be met with military retaliation, this wasn't included in treaty, which only promises a divine curse (though that curse might be brought about by military retaliation) Other Factors in the Covenant Other, unwritten factors were also part of Hittite covenants * Formal oath by which the vassal pledged his obedience * Some solemn ceremony which accompanied the oath * Procedure against rebellious vassal Covenant Forms in Israel Only the Decalogue and the covenant found in Joshua 24 follow the Hittite model The covenants with Abraham and Noah are not suzerain covenants because obligations were not imposed upon the "vassals," Abraham and Noah, while the "suzerain," God, imposes obligations upon himself The covenant of Moses is a suzerain covenant: the Israelites must meet specified obligations, while Yahweh is bound to none. Moses created a sense of (religious) unity among the Israelites that had not existed before; they had been several unrelated groups previously. → This new collection of peoples was an amphictyony, an association of neighboring states for their common interest (in this case, centered around a common God) These elements only make sense if a covenant is at the basis of the new nation; why else would an amphictyony last as long as it did (longer than any other, it seems) The Israelites banded together under the Decalogue (to Yahweh, not Moses) to ensure safety in the desert. The Exodus is the historical prologue in this covenant The covenant had ingredients of a suzerainty treaty: ceremony following 1st commandment's prohibition of worshiping other gods made treaties with other nations impossible The Israelite religion is unlike any other religions from that era because they didn't blame or threaten God (like other religions did). That would have been in violation of their covenant, and God could have retaliated The differences between Hittites and Israelites are also worth noting

Weinfeld outline

Intro

• Two types of covenants in the Old Testament: obligatory (Sinai covenant), promissory (Abrahamic/Davidic covenants)
• Obligatory type of covenant similar to other treaties from that era, but promissory unlike other treaties

Treaties and grants

• Treaty: vassal has obligations to superior
• Grant: superior has obligations to vassal
• Covenants with Abraham and David were grants

• In Hittite treaties, superiors would reward vassals with land, which could not be given away to "strangers"
• Adoption was key to continuity of power, "forensic metaphor"

Covenant with Abraham

• God as suzerain who was obligated to keep his promise to Abraham
• Animal sacrifice was part of the oath, practice started in 3rd millennium
• the land gifted in Genesis 15 was part of a legal pattern (like in Hittite treaties?)
• Abraham is promised a dynasty before he is promised land
• Both Abraham and David were promised legacy in future generations

Grant to Caleb

• Because of Caleb's loyalty to God, he was granted Hebron
• Hebron was the origin of the Abrahamic/Davidic covenants

Grants to Priests/Revenues

• status could be granted (priesthood)
• Levites received tithes from all of Israel; inheritance given to all sons of Levi
• Aaronite and Levite grants also came from Hebron