Talk:Rahab (demon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rahab (the harlot)

In the Book of Joshua, Rahab was a prostitute living in Jericho. Rahab and her family were saved from the complete destruction of Jericho because she hid spies from the army of israelites who were encamped across the Jordan river.

Rahab was the original "scarlet" woman as she had to hand a scarlet thread in her windows as a sign to the invaders that it was to be spared.

She joins the israelites and later marries Salmon, one of the spies she had saved. Her descendants include David and Jesus (see geneology in Matthew 1).

The talk on Rahab the harlot seems out of place here, it belongs here: Rahab... yet since Rahab is a Cananite demon/deity, it may be that Rahab the harlot was named after Rahab the Demon/deity, in which case this COULD be relevant? --Jlc46 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement "This name was also applied to Egypt, and the destruction of the Pharaoh after the exodus of the Israelites from that country, was compared with the slaying of Rahab, perhaps a late corruption of Rahab slaying the Pharaoh (the Red Sea drowning his troops)." Surely seems flawed doesn't it? Myth logically, it is the slaying of the waters by Ba'al, or Marduk that is important here... so it is the drying of the Red Sea that is important. Thus this seems to be a Ba'al polemic, saying that Jehovah is mightier than Ba'al and is the real slayer of the waters, as evidenced by his drying of the Red Sea. If there is a myth where "Rahab slay[s] the Pharaoh" which could be an earlier source I am not aware of it, and surely a reference should be given or the entire paragraph should be cut. If the author is just referring to the Exodus itself where the waters slay Pharaoh, then where is the evidence that Rahab is another name for Egypt, since it is Egypt that is being slain? I haven't cut it yet, to provide someone an opportunity to speak for its survival here first. Can someone give a reason why it should remain, or does someone have a reference for this supposed original myth that this is a corruption of??? In general the thinking appears incorrect. --Jlc46 21:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)