This is a user sandbox of Slfirme. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article.

Coogan Citation: ^[1]

/info/en/?search=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.="" />

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. ^[2]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2015. Further details are available on the course page.

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.

^[3]

• 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. ^[4]

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.

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.

In both the Roman and Hittite legal systems, there was never an actual word for covenant. There were in fact variations of the types of covenants, but usually the literal translations of "oaths or bonds" indicated that one party was more dominant. The dominant party was called the sovereign party, while the lesser party was the vassal. These covenants were written by the sovereign, and were considered to be the sovereign's covenant, as the vassal was obligated to do certain things in accordance to the covenant. There are six main elements of these covenants, including the preamble, the historical prologue, the stipulations, periodic public reading, witnesses, and curses/ blessings.These elements can vary from version to version, but give the general idea about the contents of such a covenant.

The preamble gives the author, the title of the sovereign party, and usually his genealogy. It emphasizes the greatness of the king or dominant party usually. Secondly, the historical prologue sheds insight into the previous relations of the sovereign and the vassal in order to give a background for the basis of the covenant. Most importantly in this section, the vassal is agreeing to future obedience for the benefits that he received in the past without deserving them. The third section, the stipulations, define how the vassal is obligated and gives more of the legalities associated with the covenant. Fourthly, the covenant usually includes provision for being preserved in the temple, with periodic public readings. These things served to inform the public of the expectations involved and increase respect for the sovereign party, usually the king. Fifthly, the witnesses were usually included as a list of gods, especially of the vassals themselves. Finally, the curses and blessings portion of the covenant listed certain curses and blessings for abiding by or breaking such a covenant.

1. Some scholars believe that the idea of ritual impurity of Gentiles dated back to very early biblical times, and others hold that this idea was somewhat newer, and that it became reality in the Second Temple period.

A. Epstein describes several rationals for what was the aversion to (and later prohibition of) intermarriage:

i. the custom of endogamy

ii. enmity with other groups

iii. religious differences with other groups

iv. racial differences

v. self-preservation in times of threatened assimilation

vi.Ritual impurity is not included in this list.

B. Scholars (such as Alon) hold that the prohibition to intermarriage was based on the ritual impurity of Gentiles as a whole.

2. Hayes makes the point that the fear of profaning the holy seed of Israel is the dominant factor, instead of the fear of contracting ritual impurity from a Gentile.

A. Moral impurity is associated with intermarriage (not ritual impurity by means of physical contact)

B. Rabbinic bans on intermarriage were the rationale for creating Gentile impurity.

i. Gentile impurity was not a deciding factor in determining whether there was a ban or not.

C. Hayes supports the idea that the idea of ritual impurity of Gentiles came later and is a "legal reality of a relatively late period." ^[5]

3. Certain terminology differences exist between pure/impure and holy/profane items.

A. Each word pairing is an antonym.

i. Pure is the opposite of impure, and holy is the opposite of profane.

B. By default, most items are profane (nonholy) and pure.

i. Something has to happen for an item to be considered holy (consecration) or impure (becoming defiled).

ii. A holy item is always pure; if defiled, automatically considered to be profane (nonholy) until purified.

4. The Ezran ban was characteristic in that it was universal and the fear of the profanation of the holy seed was its rationale.

A. The Torah law only prohibited marriage within the 7 Canaanite tribes.

B. Hayes holds that the ban on Canaanite marriage was not because of the ritual impurity of the Gentiles, but rather based on the idea that the Canaanites will cause the Israelites to imitate their idolatrous and immoral ways. ^[6]

i. Fear that the association with Canaanite wives could eventually lead to religious apostasy.

C. Idea from Deut 7:2b-4 that "they will turn your children away from Me to worship other gods..."

i. The argument is then presented that intermarriage with ANY Gentile (not just the 7 Canaanite nations) that results in the Israelite turning to idolatry should be prohibited.

ii. Secondly, it is argued that only those intermarriages that cause an Israelite to turn to idolatry should be prohibited.

5. Hayes argues that if the prohibition of intermarriage to a Gentile were based on ritual impurity, the impurity would be universal in scope.

A. For example, the women in foreign nations (not of the 7 Canaanite nations) are able to be taken as booty in wartime, or there is a certain procedure detailing marriage to a "beautiful captive woman" ^[7]

B. Deut. 23 provides another prohibition of intermarriage.

i. "No Ammonites of Moabites should be admitted into the congregation of the Lord" ^[8]

ii. Edomites and Egyptians are also not allowed into the congregation until the third generation.

iii. Context supports the idea that being "allowed into the congregation" is interpreted to be a prohibition of intermarriage.

C. Some groups are excluded (and thus, some are included) when addressing whether it is okay to marry a Gentile.

D. The ban placed on the people in Deuteronomy appears to be because of moral-religious and sociopolitical reasons (rather than Gentile impurity as a whole).

6. Epstein describes a concern with the purity of blood; according to Hayes, Ezra is more focused on the idea of Israel as a holy seed.

A. Marriage restrictions are seen as necessary means by which to preserve the holy seed of Israel.

B. The mingling of the profane seed with the holy seed by intermarriage causes the holy seed to become profane.

i. Intermarriage profanes the holy seed, which God has consecrated to himself.

7. Milgrom proposes two explanatios for Ezra's unique application of the laws of sacrilege:

A.Ezra uses a technical term for "desecration or profanation of a sanctum" ^[9]

i. Ezra applies prohibition of intermarriage to all exogamous unions.

ii. Regards Israel as a sanctum and concludes that there should be rules against the sacrilege of such sancta.

iii. Israel will be profaned by marriage with those who are not holy. ^[10]

B. Another explanation of Ezra's unique application of the laws of sacrilege is that he only prohibited the intermarriage with non-Israelites in the local population.

C. According to Hayes, Milgrom's first explanation is preferred, though it is possible that both occurred simultaneously.

8. The holy seed rationale has two main effects:

A. Prohibition become universal, causing Gentiles to cause profanation by definition.

B. Prohibits marriages with children of mixed marriages because their seed is no longer pure.

9. Concluding points:

A. No biblical ban on intermarriage is grounded in ritual impurity.

B. The moral-religious and hold seed rationales are in the Second Temple sources primarily.

i. Also support for the preservation of the seed in the book of Tobit, as there the intermarriage also leads to apostasy and idolatry.

Hayes discusses intermarriage in terms of ritual impurity and the fear of profaning the seed of Israel and compares viewpoints the Deuteronomic and Ezran viewpoints on intermarriage as well. First and foremost, Hayes holds that the fear of profaning the seed of Israel was the underlying rationale for the ban in exogamous marriage, rather than the ritual impurity of Gentiles in general. She also argues that the regulations on intermarriage in the times of Ezra were different from the restrictions on intermarriage according to the book of Deuteronomy. For example, the Ezra ban on intermarriage was different in that it was 1) Universal in scope, and 2) had the rationale that intermarriage was the profanation of the holy seed of Israel. ^[11] She elaborates on these differences by saying that the prohibition at the time the Torah was written was not based on the ritual impurity of all Gentiles; rather, only the Gentiles of the 7 Canaanite nations that were specified were to be avoided. This was "based on the fear that intimate contact with the Canaanites will lead Israelites to imitate their idolatrous and immoral ways." ^[12] Thus, Hayes contrasts the restrictions on intermarriage at the time the Torah was written with the time of Ezra by pointing out that the Torah did not prohibit intermarriage between all Gentiles, only those in the 7 nations specified. Furthermore, the intent of the Ezra ban was different in that it was based on the preservation of a holy seed, as opposed to the idea in the Torah that contact with the Canaanites would lead to the Israelites imitating their idolatrous and immoral ways.

1. Nehemiah and Ezra are similar, but also different. One of the major differences between the two in their accounts of intermarriage is that Nehemiah mentions the significance of language. 2. Both books of Ezra and Nehemiah conclude with the issue of intermarriage, and both have similar viewpoints about exogamy and "foreign women."

A. Each emphasizes the separation from foreigners using several forms of the same root word.

B. Marriage with outsiders is considered to be 'evil' and a transgression.'

C. Both texts allude to the text in Deuteronomy 7:3, which talks about how one should not take a foreign spouse.

D. Certain terms and phrases are found in similar circumstances with the same nuances. ^[13]

3. Because of their similarities, some scholars have concluded that the two accounts of Ezra and Nehemiah have originated from a similar source.

A. Motivation by the natives to 'marry up' may have been common.

B. 'Marrying up' could have provided a 'non-coercive means' by which gaining power and status could be done.

i. This could also be done to regain lost status as well.

C. This theory emphasizes that there was a gender divide in Ezra and Nehemiah, indicating that the foreign women in particular seemed to be the problem.

4. Linking Ezra and Nehemiah's views on intermarriage leads to issues of context, class, and land.

A. Ezra is engaged in a protest against marriage between post-exilic and non-exilic Jews.

i. This is an intra-Jewish debate, in a sense.

B. Nehemiah's protest is against marriage of Jews with non-Jews however.

i. This debate also shows that political considerations are taken into account.

ii. Nehemiah's debate ends with an example from Solomon and his many wives, and illustrates the political problems with foreign marriage.

iii. Term and use of the title 'children of the exile' to examine ethnic implications.

5. The most prominent link between Ezra and Nehemiah's views on intermarriage can be summed up in that they were trying to protect ethnicity.

A. Ezra established this through categorization, boundary-forming behavior, selection of particular terminology, and emphasis on exilic identity. ^[14]

B. Nehemiah focuses on language.

Another common theme of Ezra-Nehemiah is the concern for endogamy, or marriage within one's own group. Katherine Southwood emphasizes that Ezra and Nehemiah are similar in their views of intermarriage in that both Ezra and Nehemiah allude to the Deuteronomic text in their narratives, and believe intermarriage to be a type of transgression. There are other similar nuances that lead some scholars to believe that they are from a similar source. However, there are also differences in thee two sources that should not be forgotten. Firstly, the intermarriage debate is between different classes of people, each of which is trying to reserve their sense of ethnicity. Ezra argues that marriage with non-exilic Jews is a transgression, and Nehemiah emphasizes that marriage to non-Jews is a sin. Interestingly, scholars also believe that there were further political reasons behind Nehemiah's protest against intermarriage, and Ezra had a variety of different reasons. In either case, these two viewpoints on intermarriage with exogamous groups have differences, but ultimately, each is trying to promote and protect the ethnicity of their own group ^[15].

Southwood goes on to discuss that both Ezra and Nehemiah display a "consciousness of ethnicity' ^[16], though Southwood focuses primarily on Nehemiah's case, and the importance of the relationship between ethnicity and language. In Nehemiah specifically, the women that the Jews have married are named specifically as from 'Ashod, Ammon, and Moab' (Neh. 13:23) ^[17]. The concern is then expressed that the Ashodites were connected to Nehemiah's statement of outrage when he says that 'half of their children spoke the language of Ashod... and they were not able to speak the language of Judah' (Neh. 13:24) ^[18]. There is some debate as to how different the language of Ashod was from the Hebrew. However, if the languages were similar, according to Southwood, the problem at stake would be the purity of the language. If this were an entirely different language altogether, the purity of the language would be concern, as well as the concern for the threat of the extinction of the Hebrew language. In either case, the religious and ethnic identity that is encapsuled with the Hebrew language was being put at stake. Southwood makes the point that Nehemiah's objection to intermarriage with foreign women, especially those aforementioned, relates to language being the symbol of ethnicity; therefore, it is not the language itself that is the problem, but rather the preservation of language is a "symptom of deeper concern about protecting ethnic identity." ^[19] Thus, Southwood holds that both Ezra and Nehemiah are concerned about the legitimacy of their groups in relation to the experience of the exile, though Nehemiah's concern specifically emphasizes language as a potential means by which ethnicity seemed to be defined.