Levitikus 10

Anderson, Gary A., “Through Those Who Are Near to Me, I Will Show Myself Holy”: Nadab and Abihu and Apophatic Theology: CBQ 77, 2015, 1–19.  Show MorePublished Abstract: The story of Nadab and Abihu has been called “a model of undecidability.” For many readers it looks like “a punishment in search of a crime” (Edward Greenstein). Though scholars have posed numerous suggestions as to why Nadab and Abihu are incinerated beside the altar, none has compelled assent. Edward Greenstein suggested that this aporia in the text is not accidental but was intended by the author. I concur with this conclusion but not with the Derridean explanation he offers. Apophatic theology offers an account that is more in keeping with the lineaments of a Priestly theology of divine presence.

Hepner, Gershon, The Naked Truth Concerning the Death of Nadab and Abihu: RB 121, 2014, 108–111.  Show MoreAbstract: H.’s analysis of the premature deaths of Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1–6) supports Philo’s interpretation of this narrative when he states that the two sons of Aaron entered the Tabernacle naked. However, whereas Philo regarded their conduct favorably, H.’s analysis suggests that the author implies that they were violating biblical laws, especially Exod 28:42–43. The Nadab and Abihu narrative may therefore be regarded in part as an implicit polemic against worship of YHWH in a manner other ancient Near Eastern nations worshipped their gods – naked.

Heyd, Andrew, Honor in the Cult: Leviticus 10 in Socio-Rhetorical Perspective, in: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 46, 2022, 548–562. DOI: 10.1177/03090892221081158.  Show MorePublished abstract: Walter Houston’s article on the death of Nadab and Abihu is one of the few attempts to bring a social science model of honor and shame to bear on the Pentateuch. This article will argue that he did not go far enough in tracing how honor and shame bring coherence, not just to the Nadab and Abihu incident but also to all of Lev. 10. In particular, honor also explains the speeches of Yhwh and Aaron, the transition from the prohibition of mourning to Aaron’s grant of interpretive authority, and the overall narrative tension and resolution of the chapter’s narrative. This article will briefly review and critique Houston’s article and then argue that Lev. 10 contains a rhetoric of honor that coordinates relationships between Yhwh, priests, and people in a way that brings greater coherence to the chapter as a whole.

Kellenberger, Edgar, Der schweigende Mose in Lev 10,16–20: ThZ 71, 2015, 136–143.  Show MorePublished abstract: Narrative Leerstellen fallen in Lev 10 besonders stark auf und haben im Laufe der Auslegungsgeschichte zu zahlreichen scharfsinnigen und phantasievollen „Auffüllungsversuchen“ geführt, die untereinander kombinierbar sind oder sich gegenseitig ausschliessen. Jedoch muss es einen Grund haben, weswegen Lev 10 nicht eindeutiger formuliert ist. Der vorliegende Beitrag schlägt vor, die Leerstellen als bewusste Darstellung von unauflösbaren Ambivalenzen ernst zu nehmen. Voraussetzungen dazu sind seelsorgerliche Erfahrungen der Priester Israels.

MacDonald, Nathan, Whose Ḥaṭṭāʾt? Aaron’s Enigmatic Response to Moses in Lev 10:19: ZAW 133, 2021, 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/zaw-2021-0007  Show MorePublished abstract: Aaron’s enigmatic response to Moses’ accusation of cultic malpractice in the disposal of the remains of the ḥaṭṭāt (Lev 10:19) has puzzled exegetes since antiquity. Recent interpreters have concluded that it is not possible to understand Aaron’s reasoning and that his response emphasizes the priesthood’s mystique and its claim to a qualified freedom in interpreting Mosaic law. In contrast, I argue that the crux interpretum can be resolved when we pay particular attention to the pronominal suffixes attached to the word חטאת.

Wolak, Arthur J., Alcohol and the Fate of Nadab and Abihu: A Biblical Cautionary Tale Against Inebriation: JBQ 41, 2013, 219–226. Online

HThKAT – fortgeführt …