Talk:Wife–sister narratives in the Book of Genesis

Is this article appropriate for Wikipedia?

Is Wikipedia really the place for a whole article based on bible criticism? If you want, I could also write whole articles based on interpretations of every verse and theme in the Torah, based on the commentaries of Rashi, Ramban, Ohr HaChaim, Sforno, etc. However, what has been the status quo until now has been to incorporate the various interpretations (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Gnostic, etc.) within the encyclopedic entries themselves. Moreover, these main articles deal with the people in the Bible or major incidents, like the Binding of Isaac, not with minor incidents like these three examples of a wife being called a sister. I would recommend deleting this article and incorporating a paragraph or two in the articles about Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Rebeccah. Yoninah 09:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Interpretations of every verse in the Torah, based on commentaries, are in case very valid. I assume that it is only a question of time before these will be included. "A wife confused for a sister" must be addressed as a crosscutting theme in some of the central literature in order to be included. Otherwise it is original research. This search string gave me nothing (!), but Duffy explained that this appears in the "Jewish encyclopedia, eastons, friedmann, and finkelstein" (edit summary). My questions are then to Duffy: Are these cases discussed together or separately? If the first is true, what are the theme names in these books (if possible with a URL or page reference). In any case, the scholar quality of the article seems good. Regards, gidonb 17:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that "the scholarly quality of the article seems good." What happened to the thousands of years of classic Jewish commentaries on the Torah? As with many other Biblical entries, this article attempts to "interpret" the Torah based on the plain meaning of the words or on the documentary hypothesis, which is just that, a hypothesis. Every Orthodox Jew knows that layers of meaning are encoded within the Biblical text, and that a full understanding of any "theme," such as the claim that a wife is a sister, must be based on a thorough review of all the commentators who have written about it (which includes but is not limited to the Talmud and Midrash). Orthodox Judaism also completely rejects Bible criticism, so the presentation of this article from that point of view seems suspect. I also am baffled by the title, "A wife confused for a sister." Why "confused"? Yoninah 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yoninah, these commentaries could of course be added. However, I think it is really best to collect some additional information in order to decide on the best the policy towards this article. It may need to deleted (POV-tagged if that will not get through), renamed and/or just extended with additional information. I asked Duffy for more information on her sources. I would also like to ask you: Are there in the classic Jewish commentaries any comparisons or references between these cases? Regards, gidonb 19:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I voted for deletion, since we got no answer yet from the author. gidonb 19:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The story is unfortunately given many different titles in the literature, and hence it is difficult to find a single one under which they are happy. Many of the titles used are somewhat long-winded, tending to take up entire sentences, this being one of the shortest I could find for it. You (one of you) asks "are these cases discussed together or seperately?", the answer is that they are discussed together, almost all of the time, for example, the JewishEncyclopedia articles on "Abimelech" and on "Beersheba" both discuss both of the Abimelech stories as a single unit. --User talk:FDuffy 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why "confused"? because Abimelech/Pharaoh initially thought that the woman was a sister when in fact she was a wife. I.e. they confused a wife for a sister. --User talk:FDuffy 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Orthodox Judaism also completely rejects Bible criticism". True. But this isn't Orthodox-Judaism-wiki. Articles are not written from a 100% Orthodox Judaism POV, that would violate NPOV, and Judaism certainly values the Midrash and Talmud.

What happened to the 1000 years of Jewish commentary? That's there if you look, the midrash's stance is pointed out - Abraham was viewed as being stupidly deceitful - making a stupid action, ultimately responsible (according to the midrash) for causing the destruction of the 1st and 2nd temples, the death of Saul, and others, wheras Abimelech was condemned for his treatment of Isaac. --User talk:FDuffy 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

You state in your edit summary that the article is from a few in-copyright sources. Just want to know if based the article on them, or copied from them? With blessings, 220.233.48.200 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The in-copyright sources are not the main basis of the article. There is certainly "fair use" going on. Beersheba's archaeology constitutes about a paragraph in a very large book by finkelstien for example. The JewishEncyclopedia is very much out of copyright. --User talk:FDuffy

Please check what fair use is. This most certainly isn't a case of it. And the Jewish Encyclopedia isn't out of copyright, just some very old editions are. Can you state which editions are you using. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm using the 1911 public domain edition. The one that scholars view as more worthy and of greater scholarship than any of the later editions. This is fair use. --User talk:FDuffy 20:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Beersheba

In the "Beersheba" section, could you please add the Chapter and verse where these different translations are given, beside the text? Thanks ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic translations (Shibah vs. Shebua) ? Or do you mean "seven wells" vs. "well of seven" vs. "well of the oath" (twice) ?

--User talk:FDuffy 21:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[KJV translation]

Gen 21:30 And he said, For [these] seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well. Gen 21:31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them

it cunningly is ambiguous as to whether it calls it Beersheba because of the seven ewes (well of seven) or because of the oath (well of the oath)

The other story

Gen 26:18-31 ...[dug some wells then made an oath]...

Gen 26:32 And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water.

Gen 26:33 And he called it XXXXX: therefore the name of the city [is] Beersheba unto this day

Where XXXXX is "Shibah" (seven) in the Masoretic text but "Shebua" (the oath) in the Septuagint

Note also how

• Gen 21:31 is essentially Beersheba has its name because Abraham called it that for reason Y.
• Gen 26:33 is essentially Beersheba has its name because Isaac called it that for reason Z.

somewhat contradictory, appearing to suggest it is given its name for the first time twice.

--User talk:FDuffy 21:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Or possibly, that ABraham's Well of the Oath was in a different location from Isaac's Well of the Oath... more than one place had the name Beersheba, did it not...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, just the one. It's still there today, called Beersheba, or rather the historical site is Tell-Beer-Sheva some way from the modern town. Every single academic source, even the apologetic ones, agree that the text refers to exactly the same place. --User talk:FDuffy 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't subscribe to the Documentary hypothesis

I do not subscribe to the Documentary hypothesis. My own research indicates that one of the main original sources for Genesis was Jubilees -- but outside of the Ethiopian Church, I don't know of any scholars that I can cite, so I guess that remains my Original research, and I cant exactly write an article-essay about it. Clearly Genesis had a source, but instead of reconstructing hypothetical sources like J, Y, etc. with such confidence, we ought to take a closer look at a source we already have, because the allegations that it dates to only Maccabean times are not convincing to me. Interestingly, Jubilees only includes the episode between Isaac and Abimelech, and the one between Abraham and Pharoah. The version between Abraham and Abimelech sounds like the conflated one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jubilees as a source? 100% of academic research points to the opposite - that Jubilees is copied from Genesis (plus a 3ish chapter abridgement of the rest of the torah) and is heavily edited to conform to 2nd century views of god, transposing any morally dubious act that genesis attributes to god or a patriarch to satan or some other villain in Jubilees. Jubilees is very much a pantomime version of history, the heroes are 100% good and the villains are 100% evil.

Why is Jubilees dated to Maccabean times? Well, the theology matches perfectly, and the syntax, vocabulary, and grammer of the language used is exactly that of Maccabean times, and completely different to that of the 7th century BC, or earlier. But maybe blatently obvious clues like that shouldn't be relied upon?

Determining which story is the fake, if one of them is, isn't so easy.

• Many think that Sarah is the original Israel, the words having the same meaning; even though "sarah" is traditionally translated "princess" it actually doesn't mean that, as a quick glance at the only possible translations for the book of Hosea's use of the word "sarah" will reveal - "own sarah el" is translated "as a man he struggled with god" where "he struggled" translates "sarah" - "israel" of course being explained as meaning exactly that in reference to exactly the same event.
• Many think, owing to a passage in Amos, that Isaac is the original Israel
• Obviously the bible itself says that Jacob is the original Israel

Trying to seperate whether any of the figures are real at all, which are distinct, and which are just alternate names for each other, is really not a clear cut question, academically. --User talk:FDuffy 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the assertion that Jubilees is Maccabean many times, but still don't find it convincing. If 100% of scholars agree, you mean outside of Ethiopian ones. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean 100% of academic scholars, not religiously motivated church theologians. --User talk:FDuffy 00:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, what is it that motivates the academic scholars to say it is decidedly Maccabean on so little evidence that is so tenuous? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In my own research I have compiled a vast list of evidence that Jubilees is a far more archaic version than Genesis and the Torah. But I can't exactly make this into an article-essay. I will briefly mention here on this talk page, one of the strongest cases:

Take a look at Numbers 13:22. Abruptly inserted into a text about Moses' spies sent into Canaan, we find this comment: "(Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt.)"

This little fact isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Torah. What could be the source? It doesn't fit in chronologically here at all. It's only mentioned one other place that I know: Jubilees 13:12, where it fits in much more smoothly with the narrative, where one would logically expect to find it, i.e. right after he relates about Abram going to Hebron when it was built.

Now, make an honest evaluation: Obviously, by the time Numbers and the Torah were compiled, the Hebrews already knew Hebron with the distinctive epithet "that was built seven years before Tanis in Egypt", so much that this was practically part of the title. This would mean they could hardly mention the name of Hebron without adding "that was built 7 years before Tanis", and that is the likeliest way to explain why the redactor of Numbers put it in 13:22 quite out of context. But there must have been a source for this little piece of lore, that would have presumably had it within the Abraham narrative, right where Jubilees has it. It's remotely possible that a Maccabean era forger could have known all this, and sewn it into precisely the right spot, but really I doubt this. Jubilees looks more like the source we would expect, a real attested source, than any hypothetical "J / E / P" source that can be reconstructed. The Maccabean "evidence" is flimsy, and is really only a rehash of religiously-motivated allegations first made at Yavneh in 80 AD, when it was excised from the Masoretic canon. Jubilees was held in high regard with the other books at Qumran. It was held in high regard by the Jews until Yavneh. It continued to be held in high regard by the Christian Church Fathers until Nicea. Modern scholars should make an honest reassessment of whether Numbers 13:22 isn't really based on Jubilees 13:12 as an older source, and like I said, that's only the first thing on my list, the tip of the iceberg. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The nature of sourcing

WP:CITE doesn't just mean listing some sources at the bottom. In this article, the "striking similarity" between the narratives must have been observed by someone, whether this is Finkelstein, Friedman etc etc or of course Francis' favourite Jewish Encyclopedia.

I have no doubt the article is notable but only if the topic can be traced to individual discoveries by Bible critics and there is an indication that the Bible criticism community has accepted this view. At the moment, the article does not indicate this. JFW | T@lk 17:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the idea is from Lane Fox. But the article doesn't say that. At the moment it is equally possible the idea is from FDuffy. JFW | T@lk 10:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

FDuffy seems to have left Wikipedia for a little while. Meanwhile, we are left with an article that reads like original research but has some references at the bottom. Francis has consistently refused to reveal which writers actually pioneered the explanation he has attributed to "scholary views".

I have now moved the view of the classical commentators to the top (as they came first). I have also inserted an interesting view from Feldman. The articles in "Challenge" (Carmell & Domb) are very useful in dealing with Bible criticism. JFW | T@lk 11:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Title of article

Now that the whole deletion debate is over, I suggest that the title of this article be modified to something that is a more accurate description and slightly more neutral, such as Wife-sister narratives in Genesis. Dovi 20:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

One last inquiry whether there are objections or better title suggestions. Otherwise I'll just move it. Dovi 19:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest expanding it into a wider Wives of the Patriarchs, then we could also include what other information there is about them, like Rachel, Keturah, et. al. Thoughts? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that Francis has departed, some drastic reorganisation will now be possible. Does anyone know who actually came up with the wife-sister business? The whole issue can be reduced to 2-3 paragraphs in a longer article about the matriarchs. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think the article should be renamed to? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Matriarchs (Bible) is a good merge candidate, but it needs expanding of other content related to the imahos. For example, some commentators have pointed out that all of the four Matriarchs had reproductive difficulties, and the Talmud states clearly that "G'd desired their prayers". JFW | T@lk 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a merge tag. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Will you be performing the merge? JFW | T@lk 22:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If no one gets around to it before I do, however anyone could. I would prefer if someone else did it, only because I am lazy. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First we should notify any editors who are watching that article with a mergefrom tag... I'll do that part... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This talk page should move there too, at present there is none there... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys are making a mistake with the merge. Do you really want Matriarchs filled with a debate about source criticism? This article is about three specific closely parallel stories that became the ultimate, most bandied-about example of source-criticism in the school of Wellhausen. (In fact, that is probably why the author chose to write an article about this - he probably learned it as a basic example in some course he was taking.) But there is no doubt that the three stories are in a unique class of their own. This is not just "Matriarchs" (in fact, it is no less "Patriarchs").

So I once again suggest the same title above: Wife-sister narratives in Genesis - precise, to-the-point, and unbiased (unlike the current one). The whole long debate about this as a prime example of source criticism can go in that article, both pro and con. Once again, if you merge it, you are eventually going to have that entire debate within "Matriarchs" where it really does not belong. Dovi 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What Dovi is proposing sounds good as well. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it for now. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the new title. --User talk:FDuffy 20:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

P.s. In regards to JFW's comment, I haven't departed, I've just got a degree thats slightly more preoccupying at the present time. --User talk:FDuffy 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the new title as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

The "Opinion" section seems to display a disturbing lack of the Neutral Point of View, as it focuses solely on questioning the accuracy, without mentioning ANY of the scholarly research supporting its accuracy, and glossing over (barely mentioning) the fact that the majority of Christians believe the stories to be literally true. --Tim4christ17 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Francis wrote the whole article from one perspective, neglecting to cover dissenting opinions. I added the Feldman reference, which is a summary of findings that give a plausible explanation for the phenomenon that is more in keeping with the literal reading.

Tim, don't worry. Jews are generally Biblical literalists. The majority of Jews believe the stories to be literally true as well. JFW | T@lk 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Sarah really Abraham's half-sister?

In this article, under section "The treatment of women in the narrative", it's written: "According to Genesis 12.5, Sarah left her family to set out for the land of Canaan, which puts her in this same position as suggested in the ancient tablets of Mari (a Semite city which Abraham is presumed to have visited). This suggests that Sarah was not Abrahams half-sister, but adopted sister by law.

1. It's not accurate. In Genesis 12, the Lord asked Abraham to "1 Leave your country, your people and YOUR FATHER'S HOUSEHOLD..." and so "4 So Abram left... 5 He took his wife Sarai... and they set out for the land of Canaan..." 2. According to Genesis 20:11-12, Abraham replied, "I said to myself, 'There is surely no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife.' Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife."

--Joo 20 June 2009 (GMT+8) —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC).

Horite Ruler-Priests had 2 wives

Abraham and his people were a caste of Horite ruler-priests whose kinship pattern involved 2 wives. One was a half-sister and the other was a patrilineal cousin or niece. The pattern is first found in Genesis 4 and can be traced through later ruler-priests such as Elkaniah.

This research has been done by Alice C. Linsley whose kinship diagrams are viewable here: http://biblicalanthropology.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.190.82 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Theory of Abraham's Incestuous Marriage

Hepner, through Biblical exegesis and semantics, states that it is plausible that the union of Abraham and Sarah was actually incestuous with Sarah being Abraham's half-sister. For example, in Genesis 20: 13, Abraham, talking to Abimelech, alludes to Leviticus laws or the Holiness code, by using the the phrase "lovingkindness." The same word is found referring to the sin of incestuous relationships and can also take the alternative meaning of "disgrace." Abraham, in his discourse with Abimelech, could be openly confessing his "disgraceful" relations with his wife/sister Sarah but whichever translation of the word is taken, it shows Abraham's knowledge of the Holiness code and specifically the clauses pertaining to incest found within Leviticus.ZarathustraSay20 (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Best to attribute this view to Hepner. Otherwise, it's Wikipedia declaring that there's strong evidence about how to understand the bible. ProfGray (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

ZarathustraSay20, it's great that you put a heading before adding Hepner's approach. Minor concern -- it's the wrong level heading, please fix. Significant concern -- the heading is not neutral, since it implies that Hepner is correct. For the heading, please replace it with neutral wording for the particular subtopic or issue addressed by Hepner. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

ZarathustraSay20, I tried a more neutral heading in the Article. What do you think of that? The term incest should be avoided, IMO, since it's the scholar's claim rather than the topic -- plus, this heading could cover other theories of the relationship, e.g., the Nuzi comparison. Your thoughts? ProfGray (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Theme and Structure of 3 Narratives

Coat's argues about the value of genre definition and the intention of each the stories. In the Wife-sister narratives in the Book of Genesis:

The three wife-sister narratives are all related to each other in some way sharing common content, structure and genre for communicating the content. In all three stories a promise for progeny is not a factor in the content and the structure rather the narratives have a focus on blessing. AL2015 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I am a student at Miami University and I am in a class focusing on the Hebrew Bible. As a result, we have been looking at several different sources and seeing how we can contribute to Wikipedia, and I would like to add more information about the sources of these passages and how they are related. Below is my proposed edit:

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.

I would like to add this before the main heading "Jewish and Christian Interpretations," and this comes from the source: Alexander, T.D. (1992). Vestus Tentamentum: Are the Wife/Sister Incidents of Genesis Literary Compositional Variants?. p. 145. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slfirme (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Authorship of 3 Narratives

In my Hebrew Bible class at Miami University, we have to edit wikipedia pages that pertain to the subjects we are learning about. We are dealing with this article at the moment. The wikipedia article does not fully discuss the origin of these narratives. It just points out that they seem to be variants of the same storyline. There should be a mention of how the origin of these narratives can't be determine. This is my suggested edit: "T.D. Alexander discusses how there can't be a clear answer to which source each of these three narrative derive from. There are many different theories but non can be proven to be flawless."

I think this edit should be in the introductory paragraph. It would give the reader an explanation for why the three narratives have different storylines; since it's not obvious which story came from which source.

TWloveandhonor (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Good, but I'm a bit confused, TWloveandhonor. If the origin can't be found readily, then we'd have to make sure there is something for him to argue against. Well, how would his argument against (a theory) be framed or placed? ProfGray (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Identification of Three different stories

These both support the claim that there are different versions of the story but each may be altered. As we know this to be true these claims support the facts that there are different stories and they need to be clear in wikipedia.

"Other treatments of the wife-sisters narratives are more synchronic, exploring each as a version of one tale in its varieties". The stories behind the wife sisters narratives are similar and but resort to to three different versions. According to Nidtch there is one story that has many different versions, but there are inconsistencies and they all refer back to the same story.

"Instead of three versions of the same incident, these narratives are three different stories that share only the motif of the patriarch who lies about his wife to save himself". Biddle: "the endangered Ancestress" PP-601 2nd paragraph. According to Biddle, these are three different stories about the incident. This seems to be true as we read it.

Adrugby (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Versions of the same tale or same incident? Adrugby, if Biddle and Niditch are both answering roughly the same question, and they be put under a single subheading: if so, what might this subtopic or issue be called? ProfGray (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

adding historical context to wife-sister narratives

Hi, I'm a student in a Comparative Religions class at Miami University. I found some information in an article by James K. Hoffmeier that I think would be useful here:

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.[1] 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.[2]

Jump up ^ Hoffmeier, James K. The Wives' Tales of Genesis 12, 20, & 26 and the Covenants at Beer-Sheba. Tyndale Bulletin, 1992, p. 87. Jump up ^ Hoffmeier, James K. The Wives' Tales of Genesis 12, 20, & 26 and the Covenants at Beer-Sheba. Tyndale Bulletin, 1992, p. 92. Sctimmons (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Sctimmons, and which view in the article (already) should Hoffmeier be seen as disputing? If so, shouldn't these views be combined or at least juxtaposed? Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the analysis of the narratives

Hello, I am a student at Miami University and for an assignment I have been looking through an article by Mark E. Biddle that I believe would contribute greatly to this article under the "Analysis of the narratives" section:

Each of these three stories seem to mirror one another, however each of them emphasize a different point and only share a motif. Genesis 10:12-20 emphasizes the unforgiving wrath upon the adulterer without considering the possibility that Abram was at fault. In Genesis 20:1-6, God tackles the issue of of inconsideration when He enters Abimelech's dreams and doesn't allow the adultery to occur. In Genesis 26:1-33, the emphasis is behind the argument that the nations may bring peace or famine upon themselves depending on their relations with Israel, since Israel is the holy nation. Grahamcrackered (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Grahamcrackered, where in the Analysis section should the idea of 3 emphases be placed? Also, is this a quote or a paraphrase? ProfGray (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Meaning of Beersheba

The article says this: The place the covenant was made is consequently named Beersheba, which translates either to well of oaths or well of seven or seven wells...

So far as I know, bir means a well and sabaa means seven - no mention of an oath. PiCo (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

PiCo, hi there. You are correct that be'er means well. The three letters at the end of Beersheba (shin-beit -ayin) can be used to form the Hebrew word for seven or the Hebrew triliteral root for oath-making or an oath, which is used explicitly at Genesis 21:31. Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

More Support for these being the same story

In the article "The Use of the Past to Address the Present" De Hoop points out that many stories in Genesis mirror other events in Israel's history and are merely a retelling of previous events instead of new events. He states in relation to the similarities of the three wife-sister narratives; "There has been one version which was copied, revised and adapted, resulting in the present three versions of this narrative" (De Hoop, 366). . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkcincy (talk • contribs) 17:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Dkcincy -- inadequate citation, need author and the name of the article. What does the first sentence, in your comment above, have to do with the assertion that the 3 stories are adaptations of one story? Does he merely assert this -- or what reason or evidence does he bring to support the assertion? ProfGray (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Historical purpose of wife-sister narratives

DeHoop claims that the stories of Genesis, including the sister-wife narratives, were written as a precursor to historical Israelite events. He goes on to say that these three stories are an allegory that serve to paint David in a negative light. DeHoop adds that these stories were most likely written in the time of Solomon in order for Solomon to strengthen and legitimize his rule.

DeHoop, Raymond. 1998. The Use of the Past to Address the Present: The Wife-Sister Narratives, Pages 359-369.

kk_1291 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Reversion to Marcocapelle's version

Qzagnix-01 took out the information about Abraham and Abimelech and replaced it with an unrelated section about Jacob and Laban. If Qzagnix-01 thinks that Jacob and Laban should be included, they should find sources to corroborate it, but they shouldn't delete existing information from the article that is properly cited in order to include their pet theory.--Jcvamp (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)