Rahab, prostitute or Innkeeper?

2 FHII, GINOLJC,

Good question,
Again, who was she trying to hide her identity from? The king and his soldiers? She was not a spy before the two Israelites came to Jericho. Why would she need a false cover? If she was a prostitute OR an innkeeper before this incident, she's going to tell the soldiers the truth on that matter. She was aiding spys, but was not a spy herself by trade, and if the soldiers didn't know her profession before hand and questioned her, she's not going to need to lie about her profession.

#1. She was not a spy before the two Israelites came to Jericho.
are we sure about that.

#2. Why would she need a false cover?.
Jericho was the gateway, so to speak to conquer the promise land. Moses had sent out 12 spies before. and 10 had an evil report.

#3. If she was a prostitute OR an innkeeper before this incident, she's going to tell the soldiers the truth on that matter.
if this is so, the way you see it. then it was selfish on here part to have her and her family the only ones saved. then it would not be a matter of FAITH. but, self preservation. why not bargain for the whole city?. why only for her, and her family ONLY?.

#4. She was aiding spys, but was not a spy herself by trade, and if the soldiers didn't know her profession before hand and questioned her, she's not going to need to lie about her profession.
Question, did she lie to the Kings men about the spies being in her house?.
As for it being DEEP UNDERCOVER and them "spying secretly".... Well, they did a lousy job because the king knew exactly where they were. Since the spys sought lodging, it really sounds like they looked to pass themselves off as travelers and not stealthy "shadows" sneaking around town.
#1. true, but did Rahab tell the King?. NO. listen to the account, 2 And it was told the king of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither to night of the children of Israel to search out the country". covers can be blown. that's nothing new. but didn't the spies escape, and their mission accomplish?. as an old T.V. show was named, "MISSION IMPOSSIBLE". these spies did the impossible.

#2. Since the spys sought lodging
YES, that's the crust of the matter. is not lodging done at INNS, and two why go straight to Rahab house?. notice their orders was to spy out the land and Jericho. why stop by this woman HOUSE?. why did this woman helped these men before, and I say again, "BEFORE", they had an agreement?.

one thing I want to point out here, not getting ahead of myself. but why this saying. Joshua 2:9 "And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you". question time. HOW DID THIS SUPPOSE HARLOT KNEW THAT THE LORD HATH GIVEN, NOTICE THE "HATH" GIVEN. THAT'S A PAST TENSE DESIGNATION. HATH GIVEN THE LAND UN TO THE ISRAEL?. was she a prophet, being a Harlot. I don't think so. or did she had prior knowledge that no one else had?. you make the call. things are not just adding up for the prostitute, or harlot role. the more I look at Rahab, the more complicated she gets.

You mentioned 1 Kings 3 and the famous "dividing the baby" incident. I did read Clarke's commentary. I feel the same way about that as I do about Rahab. I am not going to question the translation of the Bible. However, it is interesting that both in Josh 2 and 1 Kings 3 some versions of the Bible say "prostitute" while others (including the KJV which I stick by) say "harlot". Looking at the defintion of "harlot" it could simply be on who commits adultery. That's not the same as a prostitute. THAT much I can question.

#1.I am not going to question the translation of the Bible. However, it is interesting that both in Josh 2 and 1 Kings 3 some versions of the Bible say "prostitute" while others (including the KJV which I stick by) say "harlot".
that's my point, one translator say one thing, and another something else.

#2. Looking at the defintion of "harlot" it could simply be on who commits adultery. That's not the same as a prostitute. THAT much I can question.
Great, that again make my point. adultery is committed by MARRIED PEOPLE. now where is Rahab, in chapter 2-6 married?. see my point. and the bible have her as a H2181 זָנָה zanah (zaw-naw') v.
1. to commit adultery (usually of the female, and less often of simple fornication, rarely of involuntary ravishment)
2. (figuratively) to commit idolatry (the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Jehovah)
[a primitive root (highly-fed and therefore wanton)]
KJV: (cause to) commit fornication, X continually, X great, (be an, play the) harlot, (cause to be, play the) whore, (commit, fall to) whoredom, (cause to) go a-whoring, whorish.
Clark commentary on Joshua 2:1
the Septuagint, translate the Hebrew zonah by πορνη, which generally signifies a prostitute; but it is not absolutely evident that the Septuagint used the word in this sense. Every scholar knows that the Greek word πορνη comes from περναω, to sell, as this does from περαω, to pass from one to another; transire facio a me ad alterum; DAMM. But may not this be spoken as well of the woman's goods as of her person? In this sense the Chaldee Targum understood the term, and has therefore translated it ittetha pundekitha, a woman, a TAVERN-KEEPER. That this is the true sense many eminent men are of opinion; and the preceding arguments render it at least very probable.


why use the word prostitute and the woman is identified as a H2181 זָנָה zanah. things are not adding up correctly.

be blessed
2 FHII, GINOLJC,

tell me if this makes any sense to you.

Joshua 2:12 "Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token: 13 And that ye will save alive my father, and my mother, and my brethren, and my sisters, and all that they have, and deliver our lives from death. 14 And the men answered her, Our life for yours, if ye utter not this our business. And it shall be, when the LORD hath given us the land, that we will deal kindly and truly with thee. 15 Then she let them down by a cord through the window: for her house was upon the town wall, and she dwelt upon the wall. 16 And she said unto them, Get you to the mountain, lest the pursuers meet you; and hide yourselves there three days, until the pursuers be returned: and afterward may ye go your way. 17 And the men said unto her, We will be blameless of this thine oath which thou hast made us swear. 18 Behold, when we come into the land, thou shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which thou didst let us down by: and thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy father's household, home unto thee. 19 And it shall be, that whosoever shall go out of the doors of thy house into the street, his blood shall be upon his head, and we will be guiltless: and whosoever shall be with thee in the house, his blood shall be on our head, if any hand be upon him. 20 And if thou utter this our business, then we will be quit of thine oath which thou hast made us to swear. 21 And she said, According unto your words, so be it. And she sent them away, and they departed: and she bound the scarlet line in the window".

#1. this suppose to be praying Harlot, knows the LORD?. read Clark and Gill commentary on verse 12.

#2. verse 12 hold the key that shows Rahab was not married. so she could not have been a H2181 זָנָה zanah as the bible reads..

#3. now verse 14 put a mystery in motion. question what "business", or words, was not to be uttered. surely it cannot be their business of spying?. but what other "business". was not to be uttered between them. was this business their oath that they swear by?.

#4. why was Rehab not accursed, and her family only?. Joshua 6:17 "And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. 18 And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it".
my Question, why Rahab was not accursed, just because she hid the spies? . why was no one else given that same opportunity?. why this supposed to be praying "HARLOT", and her whole family, was not accursed?. things not adding up.

be blessed

2 FHII, greeting.

another round of interesting questions. which is GOOD.

101G: HOW DID THIS SUPPOSE HARLOT KNEW THAT THE LORD HATH GIVEN, NOTICE THE "HATH" GIVEN. THAT'S A PAST TENSE DESIGNATION. HATH GIVEN THE LAND UN TO THE ISRAEL?. was she a prophet, being a Harlot. I don't think so. or did she had prior knowledge that no one else had?.
This is quite easy. She wasn't the only one who knew. The proof is of that is found in verses 9-11:
"And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites, that were on the otherside Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye utterly destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt, neither did there remain any more courage in any man because of you: for the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath."
You can read about that in Numbers 21. Not only did everyone in the city of Jerhico know about what the Isaelites had done, everyone in that part of the world had heard of them and was deeply concerned. So no, she wasn't a prophet, she was just up on current events. Do you see that their hearts did melt and there wasn't courage in any man? This was a major news story!
I had asked why should need a false cover.
Your answer: ok, can't buy that. verses 9-11 set forth two premises. #1 she only knew, so my question still stand, "how did she, and only she knew?".
#2. all the people knew what had happen, but what about the "land" deal?. how did this woman know that. because, if the land is no longer yours, you will be killed. just take note of the first two encounters. but note, why did the king sent for the spies?. to make a deal, or league with them as did the Gibeonites in Joshua 9. since you mention numbers 21. because she said "we" heard. now my question, if one knew that the LAND was taken away from you, WHY STAY, AND BE KILLED?. don't make sense. for if she or the other people knew this, why stick around and die. was not the two kings prior was enough evidence to tell them to vacate. example, if you get a foreclosure notice, are you staying in the house after the deadline?. NO you vacate the property, if not, the sheriff will come and take you and your belonging and put you with them on the street. so, you reasoning don't make sense.

Selfish? Ok, MAYBE. But what's your point? The point of the spy mission was to see what was there so they could overtake the city. It was not their intention to spare the city and Rahab understood it. Furthermore, it wasn't a matter of self preservation becuase according to Rahab's confession of Faith (in verse 11) she believed in the Lord. It wasn't just a fear of the Israelites themselves, but an understanding the the Lord of Israel was the one true God.
my answer: can't buy that either, out of all the city, only this woman, she had faith. THAT'S MY POINT. where did she, and she alone, get these instructions?. see my point.
101G: YES, that's the crust of the matter. is not lodging done at INNS, and two why go straight to Rahab house?. notice their orders was to spy out the land and Jericho. why stop by this woman HOUSE?. why did this woman helped these men before, and I say again, "BEFORE", they had an agreement?.
Well, that's why I brought it up.... It is a point in the favor that she may have had a business (a home business) as an innkeeper. As to why she helped them before the agreement... She figured out they were Hebrew spies (probably from the king's soldiers), understood that even by turning in the men, it wasn't going to stop the destruction of the city and decided to do what she knew was best. Call it self preservation if you want, but she made the right call.
(smile), I like that line of thinking, I see you're seeing my point, a little. OK, this Rahab was no dummy, by no means. but the Lord JESUS said something in about Harlots. in Matthew 21:31b "Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you". now that's interesting, this will open up a few doors I know. I'll hold that. and please don't come with the conversion thing first. :blink:

101G: Great, that again make my point. adultery is committed by MARRIED PEOPLE. now where is Rahab, in chapter 2-6 married?.
Hey, just throwing it out there.... Where was the husband if she was married? No, he isn't mentioned... Perhaps he divorced her after she committed adultery. In any sense, according to the definitions you provided, she was either 1. An adulterer, 2. a fornicator or 3. a whore.
MY ANSWER: just throwing it out there you know that I'm on the edge anyway. OK, NO THE RECORD SAID #1. her FATHER HOUSEHOLD. no man stay with a wife in the woman FATHER's HOUSE. now you have to deal with that. not me, (smile).

You asked or made 4 other points... Brief answers: 1. Why wouldn't a harlot upon knowing, understanding and believing who God was not pray? 2. Perhaps not married, perhaps divorced.... We don't know. The Bible still says she was a harlot so you have a few other definitions to work with. 3. Why couldn't the secret business be the mission of spying? What other business did the spies have? Makes perfect sense to me.... She hid the spies, didn't mention anymore to the soldiers and helped them escape. 4. Seems perfectly ok that she was not accursed for helping the spies, yet don't forget why she did.... Fear of the Lord. I don't see any problem with it at all.

MY ANSWER: I see a whole lot of problems. OK,#1. Why wouldn't a harlot upon knowing, understanding and believing who God was not pray?". MY POINT PROVEN, and MADE AGAIN. IF SHE WAS CANAANITE WHY WAS SHE WORSHIPING, BELIEVING IN THE ONE TRUE GOD. just don't make sense do it. #2. Perhaps not married, perhaps divorced.... . MY ANSWER: why then call her a H2181 זָנָה zanah, even if she was divorced, just don't make sense. its not adding up. #3. Makes perfect sense to me.... She hid the spies. MY ANSWER:. Ok, I walk into your house, you don't know me, I'm running from the law. THAT'S AIDING, AND ABETTING, meaning, wrongdoing. so you justify wrongdoing?. I hope not, no way.
#4. Seems perfectly ok that she was not accursed for helping the spies, yet don't forget why she did.... Fear of the Lord. I don't see any problem with it at all.
MY ANSWER: now you know I'm going to have fun with this one., wow!, I guess I can go out and kill, whore around, steal, cheat, lie, and a few other thing which I want mention here. just as long as "I FEAR THE LORD". great what good news this is. especially for sinners.

Just playing, ok. seriously, can't buy that either. "the fear of the Lord", is the beginning of knowledge, Proverbs 8:13 "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate".
what do the Lord HATE. Proverbs 6:16 "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood". HOLD IT, Uh O, "a lying tongue". well that just killed Rahab. but we did get past 1, A proud look. Oh well. back to the drawing board. boy if she just wouldn't have lied.

P.S. have hope, I have an answer for the lying, but I'll hold it for now.

FHII, we still need to know How, and why this woman knew the Lord. as I suggested maybe, just maybe she was not Canaanite, but of another nationality, and not a Hebrew, fully?.

be blessed

2 FHII, greeting.
Rahab was not the only one who knew the Israelites were coming, and wasn't the only one who knew of their reputation. She specifically notes several times, "we have heard..." and that the men of Jerhico had no more will to fight out of fear. There is no reason to believe she had unique knowledge: via prophecy or otherwise. She was no Israeli spy herself before the men came into Jerhico. She had been in Jerhico long enough to have a business, a family and a household. She was indeed an inhabitant of Jerhico, and I see no Biblical evidence that she was ever anything but a resident of Jerhico.

GOOD, that's your opinion. I honor your "OPINION". as well as I hope you, mine.

There is no "land" deal going on, and Rahab didn't have special knowledge or instructions of what was going to happen. She had heard the news and believed whatever God the Hebrews worshipped was the real God. That's all there is to it. She simply believed it was going to happen based on the evidence she had. To state anything else -- she was a prophetess or she was a double secret agent -- is wild speculation.

Only, and ONLY she believe, that kinda hit your, "resident of Jerhico" reasoning in the head a little, a pagan person believing with no instructor?. remember Ruth mother-in-law influenced here to the ONE TRUE GOD. so who influenced Rahab?. ok, faith comes by hearing. so only she heard?. NO. so that want work. not buying that.

Rahab did have a special opportunity, though.... For whatever reason, the spies found their way to her house. There is no reason to suspect they had a specific reason to go there other than it was God's will or simple "chance" (which I certainly don't believe). The only other reason they could've chosen her house was it's proximity to the wall, and thus, an easy exit out of the city. Even so, it was still Rahab's house they chose.

Choice, opportunity, reason. that sound like God. now a question. can God deliver without an inside spy, yes. so the next question, why save her, and her, ONLY. the spies didn't have to make oath with her?. can't God deliver. so why send spies in the first place, can't God deliver?. so my whole question, WHY?. why the whole story, just to say God saved a HARLOT?. God been saving HARLOTS. he was with them, a whole nation of HARLOTS, in the desert, so that's nothing new?.


It's recorded at least twice in the book of Joshua that the men of Jerhico had no will to fight. Why didn't they flee the city or try to make a deal with Israel? It's not known. I don't believe they intended to do so. They had several days (at least 6 days with Israel right outside the city) to send a diplomat to negotiate, but the Bible never says they did. The opportunity to flee the city was lost when Israel arrived outside the city. It's obvious that the king of Jerhico wasn't going to send his army to fight. Both these points are clear in Jos 6:1. In short, the only defense the king had at this time was to withstand a seige. That was what he intended to do with the famed walls of Jerhico. Of course, it was no ordinary seige as the walls fell within 7 days.

#1. don't you think it a little to late to send a diplomat to negotiate, when they are at the gate now.
#2. all cities had walls. it was the norm.
#3. In short, the only defense the king had at this time was to withstand a seige.
OK, I go along with that, that's good thinking. BUT, BUT that went out the door quick when the wall fell. so there was no option, or defense left. as you said before bad choice.

In conclusion to that part of our discussion, it is easy to play Monday morning quarterback and say they should've evacuated the city. However, the king decided and had a fair amount of confidence that they could withstand a seige. Evacuating the city is a major undertaking and given the geography of the region, where were they going to go?
I would have to disagree with you on that. he had time to be a Monday morning quarterback. he saw two kings get wracked. Oh yes he had time. but what's interesting, the king didn't call for help from another king. Hummmm. knowing his men are scared, and not up to a fight. that's not Monday morning quarterbacking, that's not even a "TIGHT END", if you get my point. there was no quarterbacking, as it seem on the king behalf. Oh well, as I have been saying all of this is not adding up. but that's a Good point.

Getting back to Rahab being a harlot. Again, being a harlot could've meant several things. We don't know what she did to deserve the title, but again, it doesn't bug me that she had it. Was she an adulteress? Possibly, and no it doesn't bug me that there is no husban mentioned nor does it bug me that she was in her father's house with no husband. If she was an adultress, it's not hard to put it together: 1. She committed adultry, 2. Her husband divorced her and kicked her out of his house, 3. having nowhere to go, she went back to live with her father. No, none of that is in the Bible. However, it's either that, or she was a fornicator or she was a prostitute. Take your pick.

A. it do bug me. a title, good or bad sticks with you. what if God didn't deliver, do we continue to call him Saviour when he's not?. Oh NO. the same here with Rahab. as you said, "We don't know what she did to deserve the title". well from the research, she DO NOT deserve the title.

B. the bible clearly states that she was a H2181 זָנָה zanah, or ZONAH which is clear, adultery. which she was not married. if so scripture please.

C. Pick?, (Door #1), INNKEEPER.

In any sense, I still see no logical or acceptable reason for her to say she was a harlot when she was in fact, not.
They say, then I agree. without further evidence, I will say she was an INNKEEPER.

As for other points of her character, the fact that she was a harlot doesn't mean she wasn't smart, caring, resourceful and without virtue. We only know of two "character flaws" she had: 1. she was a harlot, and 2. she lied to the king's men. I get the sense that you believe she was a pretty unworthy character to join Israel after this incident. Yet, she had faith as noted in the NT and was accepted. She was a sinner and yes, her fear of the Lord did ultimately lead to her salvation. That isn't any different than the rest of us not only are we all sinners before coming to Christ. I do understand that this was before Christ, but despite that, whatever she did, she was accepted into the tribes of Israel. Perhaps she was the Rahab that married Salmon (the timeline is correct). I see more speculation amongst Biblical scholars as to whether or not she quit being a harlot than I do whether she was a harlot in the first place. It is reasonable to believe that after joining Israel, she adopted their law and obeyed it.

#1. I agree she was, smart, caring, and resourceful.

#2. you said, two "character flaws" she had: 1. she was a harlot. HOLD IT, SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING. she was a Harlot. see your mind set, "she was a harlot". this is just what I'm talking about. the mind set of people in calling her a harlot. and we just said we don't know. well, well, well. if the cat is not out of the bag, so to speak. Oh well, I can't wait to hear your concluding thoughts.

#3. I get the sense that you believe she was a pretty unworthy character to join Israel after this incident. NO,

#4. That isn't any different than the rest of us not only are we all sinners before coming to Christ. GOOD, should I remember you as the (whatever you did when you was a sinner, before coming to Christ), or do I call you a Christian, or a child of God. now you pick. see my Point. no matter what you did before coming to Christ, do I still stick those thing to you now?. of course NOT. so why do we do it to this woman?.

Unless you have anymore information to share that you haven't shared yet, I'm about to make my concluding thoughts on this matter.
as I said can't wait, , . Ok lets hear them

2 FHII, greeting.
good conclusion, but not good enough.
The question is whether Rahab was a harlot or an innkeeper. If she were a harlot, I am not going to question why she had this title. However, the choices are clear: 1. she was formally married and committed adultery, 2. she was a fornicator, or 3. she was a prostitute. There is no background as to why she had that label, only that she had it. Therefore, I am not going to venture farther into why she was a harlot.

Now you're adding to the word of God, "However, the choices are clear: 1. she was formally married and committed adultery". post the scripture to that FACT.
The second part of the question is was she an innkeeper. Your strongest point, 101G, is the text found in Jos 2:1, which says the spy’s went to Rahab’s house and lodge there. This indeed is the act of an innkeeper. That same text found in all Christian Bibles (at least that I have researched) also notes that she was a harlot).
The problem with this point is that the Bible never says she actually was an innkeeper; only that the spies lodged in her house. Was she an innkeeper? It is a reasonable but inconclusive assumption. Was Lot an innkeeper? The Bible doesn’t say he was and there is no reason to believe he was, yet he took strangers into his household and fed them. In short, the evidence that she may have an innkeeper from the Bible is only found in what happened: that is, the spies lodged there.

again, you added to the word of God by saying, "Was Lot an innkeeper?" The Bible doesn’t say he was and there is no reason to believe he was, yet he took strangers into his household and fed them". get the story straight Genesis 19:3 "And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat". was that Lot profession?, NO. common hospitality. don't make something more than what it is.
Your second strongest point is that you have an online version of the Tanakh that says in Jos 2:1 she was an innkeeper. For the record, here is address to that website: http://www.chabad.or...e_cdo/aid/15786 (http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15786). This however, is not a very strong “strongpoint”. Here are the reasons:
Your second witness is very questionable (http://www.sacred-te.../sam/chron1.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/sam/chron1.htm)). While it does say she was an innkeeper, this doesn’t really come off looking as a reliable source as what was written in the Tanakh. It (other than your “second witness”) is the only online Tanakh I could find that says in Jos 2:1 that she was an innkeeper. Here are two other online references that say she was a harlot:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Joshua2.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Joshua2.html)
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0602.htm (http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0602.htm)
while the chabad.org does say she was an innkeeper in verse 2:1, if you look at verses 6:17 and 6:25 she is called a harlot. So even your own reference to her being an innkeeper also calls her a harlot.

if you would notice the Tanakh that says in Jos 2:1 she was an innkeeper. true. now notice something else. in verses 6:17 and 6:25, did you notice something? in contrast look at 6:22 and 6:23,. listen, 22. And to the two men who had spied out the country, Joshua said, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out from there the woman and all that she has, as you swore to her.23. And the young men who were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brothers, and all that she had; and they brought out all her families, and placed them outside the camp of Israel". did you notice the narrative voice. now chapter 2. 1. And Joshua the son of Nun sent two men out of Shittim to spy secretly, saying, Go see the land and Jericho. And they went, and came to the house of an innkeeper named Rahab, and they lay there. 3. And the king of Jericho sent to Rahab, saying, Bring forth the men who have come to you, that have entered your house, for they have come to search out the entire land. 4. Now the woman had taken the two men, and had hidden them, and she said, Indeed the men came to me, but I did not know from where they were.
conclusion, in chapter 2 vs chapter 6. it is a third voice speaking. in chapter 2 it's first person speaking. notice it never calls Rahab a harlot. even in 6:22 and 6:23. but notice in chapter 6 its a narrative voice. in chapter 2 she is never called a harlot. so you assumption is in ERROR, again. check it out again.
You have listed the works of Clarke and his questioning of the term “harlot”. Regardless of Clarke’s reputation, it does not trump what the Bible nor what the Tanakh says. It is only a commentary, and Clarke is doing the same thing you are doing: listing possibilities to support your theory. Both you and Clarke lack inconclusive evidence. Furthermore, there are plenty of reputable commentators who note she was a harlot.

DON'T need a commentary to dispute the Bible nor the Tanakh, but they are useful.
There is the attempt to point out the virtues of Rahab as evidence that she could not have been a harlot. Could a harlot believe in God? She worked with flax and that was pointed out as something a virtuous woman does… This seems to me to be going on the belief that a harlot aren’t and can’t be good. Yes, Rahab had some virtues…. That doesn’t mean she is incapable of being a harlot.

nor is it with a women to be incapable of being righteous either.

You have raised the question as to whether she was using the term of harlot as a cover up. I see absolutely no evidence nor sound reasoning for this.
I do.
You have also raised the question as to whether she was a Caananite or possible some “deep undercover Hebrew planted spy”. Again, I see no evidence whatsoever that this is true. In fact, that she had roots in the city (a father and brethren) as well as a house and possible business AND a reputation suggests to me that she was a long-time member of the city of Jerhico.

I have Roots in Mobile, but yet I have lived outside of the City. so that dog want hunt.

Going along with the notion that she was a spy, you have suggested that she had sole knowledge of things to come. It is NOT an opinion of mine that this is false! The text clearly says that she noted others knew of the Israelites, what they had done to other cities and that they were all fearful. The fact that she proclaimed the God of Israel to be the God of heaven above and earth beneath is not surprising and not evidence that she had private information. It is simply a matter of her having faith as Hebrews 11 says she had. Why her only? Why not? It was God’s will.

NOT SO. did the Ethiopian Eunuch obtain FAITH on his own?, NO, listen, Acts 8:30 "And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?. 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him". so that blew your reasoning out the window about Rahab and her faith on her own.

Your weak points are thus:
First, the Bible refers to her as a harlot both in the Old and New Testament. She is noted as a harlot in the book of Hebrews. While there is debate over who wrote the book (the strongest contender being Paul) as well as the original language of the epistle (some claim it was written in Hebrew, but others in Greek), it still says “harlot”. Even if it were written in Hebrew, it was translated early into Greek and the term harlot was used.
James also calls her a harlot and I find no evidence that it was written in Hebrew, but in Greek.
My point here is that it is unlikely that there was a translation error that spanned the Old and New Testament.
Second, I have also pointed out that even the Hebrew text you offer as evidence does not confirm she was an innkeeper except by one single verse (Jos 2:1) In fact, your text reference also calls her a harlot. Twice.
So in conclusion, it was interesting to study this subject. While I never focused on her being a harlot (instead focusing on her being an Old Testament person of faith), I was aware that she was a harlot, and I was, and still am, not bothered by it. The only new stance I have is that there is reasonable evidence that she may have been an innkeeper as well, but that does not change the fact that she was also a harlot. There is no reason to believe that she couldn’t be both, and if I DID have to chose between the two, it’s clear from every text (both the Bible and the Tanakh) that she was indeed a harlot.

First, the Bible refers to her as a harlot both in the Old and New Testament. not so. only her cover. . because directly speaking she's just Rahab, or the woman.
so my conclusion is this. in all the research there is evidently proof of her being an INNKEEPER. now as for her cover, and her lying. remember I told you I will hold this. well here it is. if one is "under orders". as you have said, this is permissible. so understanding it this way I can see the lying, and the cover as a Harlot. it this anything new?. do we have a scripture to confirm this? YES, 1 Kings 22:19 "And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. 20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. 21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. 22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.(he, God gave permission to this spirit to do this). 23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee".

so FHII, not that the spirit is a lying spirit, but became one to PERSUADE the king, and this was done by permission, so was with Rahab, not that she was a Harlot, but persuade to be a Harlot. that her cover was to PERSUADE, in aiding the people of God in this campaign of conquering the promise LAND. boy, Oh boy, what a spy.. THAT'S MY OPINION ON THAT.

Now do you have anything else?.
be blessed.

where in chapter 2 of the Tanakh is she called a harlot?.

Your second strongest point is that you have an online version of the Tanakh that says in Jos 2:1 she was an innkeeper. For the record, here is address to that website: http://www.chabad.or...e_cdo/aid/15786. This however, is not a very strong “strongpoint”. Here are the reasons:

1.Your second witness is very questionable (http://www.sacred-te.../sam/chron1.htm). While it does say she was an innkeeper, this doesn’t really come off looking as a reliable source as what was written in the Tanakh.
2.It (other than your “second witness”) is the only online Tanakh I could find that says in Jos 2:1 that she was an innkeeper. Here are two other online references that say she was a harlot:

but notice in your reference http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Bible/Joshua2.html verse #3 3 "And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab, saying: 'Bring forth the men that are come to thee, that are entered into thy house; for they are come to search out all the land.". why not call her a harlot there, is this not the same woman. well?.

thanks, and keep searching

be bless

good day

2 Episkopos, GINOLJC.

Rahab could have been both!! Small town diversification???

diversification?. Hey, I like that, (smile). could have.
but I have that one sticking point. her being, or "was", or is, or not, married. as FHII said, maybe, "she was formally married and committed adultery". that I can't buy. the bible is clear. it calls her a H2181 זָנָה zanah (zaw-naw') v. 1. to commit adultery. adultery means MARRIED.
and here's the sticking point or the point of contention. no where in the story points to her being, or was MARRIED.
#1. Joshua 2:12 "Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token"

#2. Joshua 2:18 "Behold, when we come into the land, thou shalt bind this line of scarlet thread in the window which thou didst let us down by: and thou shalt bring thy father, and thy mother, and thy brethren, and all thy father's household, home unto thee. 19 And it shall be, that whosoever shall go out of the doors of thy house into the street, his blood shall be upon his head, and we will be guiltless: and whosoever shall be with thee in the house, his blood shall be on our head, if any hand be upon him".

#3. Joshua 6:17 "And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent".

#4. Joshua 6:22 "But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her. 23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel".

#5. Joshua 6:25 "And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho".

on this conclusion, going on the bible record. she was under her "FATHER HOUSE". with that, and the bible calls her a H2181 זָנָה zanah, without an explanation for the title. NO, can't buy that.

Key points to bring up.
a. the Key word here is here "FATHER HOUSE". over, and over, it is mention. not once about a previous title, like a "wife" to or was wife to. no not was to justify the title H2181 זָנָה zanah.

b. every time the narrator have someone directly talking to Rahab, it's Rahab by name only, without the title harlot, or the title woman. but never harlot. but when the narrator is generally speaking about Rahab, then the title of harlot is used. that to me is a key point.

c. another key point is this. Joshua 2:9 "And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you". if Rahab would have said, "I know the LORD (your God) hath given. well ok then I would know that she was heathen. but she didn't say that. and again in verse 12 "Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, since I have shewed you kindness, that ye will also shew kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token". I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD. wait a minute, if she would have said, again. "I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD, (your God). Ok then I could have believe that she was heathen again. but NO this is not adding up. compare what she said to another GENTILE, not quite, but mixed, of the Hebrew Race, the Woman, Ruth. Ruth 1:16 "And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God". see the difference, (your God will be MY GOD). that's a powerful statement. but notice Rahab statements, "I know that the LORD", and "I pray you, swear unto me by the LORD". see the difference. this women is not being converted, this woman is converted.

so my main point of contention stands. she was an INNKEEPER, collecting information on the city, and while running this business, the title "harlot, stuck on her as a mistranslation, in her occupation as a INNKEEPER". as I have said a woman who's occupation was misunderstood. just as miss Kitty on gunsmoke was misunderstood.

conclusion, why the BIBLE list here as a H2181 זָנָה zanah. my BEST answer, just as the spirit in 1 Kings 22:19-23 became a lying spirit, it accomplish the goal of the LORD. not that the spirit is a lying spirit. but acted as one, to accomplish the mission. so was this woman Rahab. if this is true, "WHAT A SPY". who would suspect a woman. where 12 spies under Moses didn't get the job done this one, single woman did.

that's my stand, until someone comes up with a better explanation, or shed more light on the subject. I can't change my position. with this explanation, I have no problem with the bible.