Levitikus 11

Aitken, James K., Why is the Giraffe Kosher? Exorcism in Dietary Laws of the Second Temple Period: Biblische Notizen 164, 2015, 21–34.

Abstract »

Published abstract: One of the more surprising animals considered lawful to eat is the giraffe. While the meaning of the Hebrew term in the list of clean ruminates (Deut 14:5) remains uncertain, the Septuagint is the first to identify it as a giraffe. The reason seems to be the cultural prominence that the giraffe gained in Egypt of the third century BCE, leading the translator to make the text both Egyptian and exotic. This is indicative of other animals in the list of permissible foods, chosen more for the exoticism they lend to the passage than as animals that were actually eaten. From this it may be suggested that the application of the kosher laws to animals would have been applied only minimally, since few animals would have been available for eating. The translator resorts to exoticism in translating the list of animals, possibly reflecting a wider interest in antiquity in fine and peculiar dining.

Burnside, Jonathan, At Wisdom’s Table: How Narrative Shapes the Biblical Food Laws and Their Social Function: JBL 135, 2016, 223–245.

Abstract »

Published Abstract: The food laws of Lev 11:3–23 and Deut 14:3–20 are among the great enigmas of biblical law. This paper views the food laws as a series of “narrative paradigms” aimed at a high-context society in which information is shared and internalized. This shared social knowledge raises the question of how the common environment of ancient Israel would make the categories intuitively clear. The narrative paradigms make sense because they reflect day-to-day engagement with the environment. The paradigm cases identify certain characteristics of a taxonomic group, which are then negated. The effect is to convey a complex body of knowledge about what can and cannot be eaten in an economical, unambiguous, and practical manner. The laws build on one another, enabling the audience to accumulate knowledge as they progress through the different categories. In this way, the very construction of the categories clean and unclean—and hence the structure and presentation of the laws themselves—is shaped by practical wisdom. This is consistent with self-executing narrative rules elsewhere in biblical law. This reanalysis helps us to understand both the compositional strategy of the food laws and their social function.

Harper, G. Geoffrey, Time for a New Diet? Allusions to Genesis 1-3 as Rhetorical Device in Leviticus 11, in: STR (Southeastern Theological Review) 4, 2013, 179–195, zuerst veröffentlicht: http://www.galaxie.com/article/str04-2-05.

Hawley, Lance, The Agenda of Priestly Taxonomy and the Conceptualization of טָמֵא and שֶׁקֶץ in Leviticus 11: CBQ 77, 2015, 231–249.

Abstract »

Published abstract: Anthropologists and biblical scholars have long sought to understand the rationale for the categorization of animals in Leviticus 11. The text itself provides no overt answer; rather, it presents the reader with a systematic taxonomy. In this article, I seek to demonstrate how the priestly authors conceptualize ṭāmēʾ (טָמֵא, “unclean”) and šeqe (שֶׁקֶץ, “detestable thing”) as identifications for different sets of animals in Leviticus 11. The system of differentiation and classification itself, as it is expressed in the compositional layers of Leviticus 11, provides the best way forward for determining the Priestly justification for distinguishing between permissible and impermissible animals for eating. After tracing the compositional history of Leviticus 11, I argue that the taxonomy has a clear focus on land quadrupeds, which may hint at the agenda of the Priestly authors, namely, to undergird theologically Israel’s sacrificial practices. Additionally, the taxonomy directly corresponds to the systematic ordering of the world in Genesis 1, reflecting the Priestly ideal that temple life is woven into the fabric of the created cosmos.

Hobson, Tom, Kosher in the Greek: The Giraffe and the Snake-Fighter?: ZAR 19, 2013, 307-312.

Abstract »

Die griechischen Begriffe ὀφιομάχης (Saga ephippigera?) in Lev 11,22LXX und καμηλοπάρδαλις (Giraffe?) in Dtn 14,5LXX sind vermutlich keine Phantasienamen, sondern authentische Wiedergaben der hebräischen Begriffe, auch wenn nicht mehr bestimmt werden kann, was genau die LXX damit meinte.

Meshel, Naphtali S., P1, P2, P3, and H. Purity, Prohibition, and the Puzzling History of Levitcus 11: Hebrew Union College Annual 81, 2010, 1–15.

Meyer, Esias E., Leviticus 11, Deuteronomy 14 and Directionality: Journal for Semitics 23, 2014, 71–89..

Abstract »

Abstract from OTA 38, 2015, 670, #2213: M.’s article engages with the old debate about the diachronic relationship between Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. It starts with outlining certain criteria which might help to determine directionality in the relationship between the two texts. It then provides a synchronic overview of the chapters, focusing on their commonalities and differences before proceeding to address the diachronic debate, in connection with which M. contrasts and critiques the views of Christophe Nihan and Reinhard Achenbach. On this basis, M. then attempts to draw some conclusions regarding the debate. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.]

Ruane, Nicole J., Pigs, Purity, and Patrilineality: The Multiparity of Swine and Its Problems for Biblical Ritual and Gender Construction: JBL 134/3, 2015, 489–504.

Abstract »

Published abstract: The biblical characterization of pigs as impure has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Most have focused on the anomalies of the pig compared with other domesticated animals, especially with regard to their alimentary processes. All interpretations, however, have neglected a primary feature of pigs that makes them radically different from all other clean land animals, namely, that they are multiparous, giving birth in litters. This article argues that the multiparity of pigs makes them incompatible with other ritually clean land animals in four ways: (1) All clean land animals are uniparous. (2) As multiparous animals, pigs do not bear a true firstborn male, which would make them different from all clean domesticated animals. This feature is most important because the sanctity of the domesticated firstling is recognized by all pentateuchal sources, and, furthermore, the ideology of the firstborn male is integrally related to the human practices of inheritance, lineage, and wealth management. (3) The multiparity of pigs highlights abundant female fertility in comparison with the more controlled and managed fertility seen in the biblical purity systems. (4) Multiparous animals are capable of bearing the offspring of multiple sires simultaneously, a phenomenon that conflicts with the biblical focus on paternity.

Staubli, Thomas, Essen: Die tägliche Herausforderung zur Heiligung. Der steinzeitliche Speisezettel, Levitikus 11, Kaschrut und Ökologie: BiKi 69, 2014, 92–95.

Abstract »

Abstract: The Book of Leviticus understands dietary rules as a means for the people to become holy. Leviticus 11 became the basis for Kashrut, the Jewish dietary laws. The rules of Leviticus 11 are the result of a very old culture of food in the Eastern Mediterranean region (especially the Southern Levant). The chapter forms the starting point of a specific Jewish dietary culture: this religious culture combines obedience toward the Torah and affirmation of identity by establishing a certain diet marked by the exclusion of several sorts of food. The dietary rules from the Old and the New Testament shall make readers of the Bible sensitive to ecological questions relating to human nutrition. However, they cannot be received at face value, but need to be developed further according to contemporary conditions of living.

HThKAT – fortgeführt …