Levitikus 12

Bar-Asher, Moshe, The Qal Passive Participle of Geminate Verbs in Biblical Hebrew, in: ders., Studies in Classical Hebrew, Berlin/Boston 2014, 9–22.

Show MoreAbstract: Der Artikel befasst sich mit der Etymologie und Semantik des Begriffs niddā.

Bosman, Hendrik L., Torah as Instruction to Establish Justice: Rethinkg Childbirth and Cultic Purity According to Leviticus 12, in: Claassens, L. Juliana M.; Maier, Christl M.; Olojede, Funlola (eds.), Transgression and Transformation. Feminist, Postcolonial and Queer Biblical Interpretation as Creative Interventions (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies), London: T&T Clark, 2021, 80-96.

Show MoreAbstract from OTA: In his contribution, B. considers the link between justice and the law in Leviticus 12 when it is a matter of safeguarding maternal health in the context of the exceedingly high mortality rate associated with childbearing in the ANE—a situation that continues to exist in many communities around the world today. [Adapted from editors’ introduction, p. 6—C.T.B.].

Erbele-Küster, Dorothea, “She Shall Remain in (Accordance to) Her Blood-of-Purification”: Ritual Dynamics of Defilement and Purification in Leviticus 12, in: Wiley, Henrietta L.; Eberhart, Christian A. (eds.), Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity. Constituents and Critique (Resources for Biblical Study 85), Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017, 59–70.

Park, M. Sydney, Inerrancy and Blood. Women and Christology in Leviticus 12, and Mark 5:21-43, in: Presbyterion 45, 2019, 83–95.   

Show MoreAbstract from OTA: This essay is limited to texts regarding women in Leviticus 12 and 15 and the hemorrhaging woman in Mark 4. Whereas one does not find a specific rationale for the purity regulations regarding menstruation and childbirth in Leviticus itself, Mark’s account of the hemorrhaging woman and the daughter of Jairus, coming as this does at the end of a section of miracle stories (Mark 4:35-5:20: stilling of the storm and exorcism of Legion), supplies a christological rationale for them. To this end, I will first address the issues posed by Leviticus 12 and 15:19-33 and briefly consider feminist interpretations of these passages. Then I will turn to Mark 5:24-34 and address three aspects thereof: textual and conceptual anomalies, interpretative tendencies, and a proposed christological solution regarding the missing rationale for the prescriptions of Leviticus 12 and 15 in light of the broader context of Mark 4:35–5:20. [pp. 83-84, adapted-C.T.B.]    —    Assessment (English see below): Der Artikel ist in mindestens zwei Aspekten sehr problematisch: (1) Die Kapitel Levitikus 12 und 15 sowie das Konzept von Reinheit und Unreinheit werden nicht angemessen verstanden, was zum Teil an unreflektierten Übersetzungen, zum Teil an der Rezeption von Sekundärliteratur liegt, die ihrerseits dem Text nicht gerecht wird. (2) Die christologischen Implikationen im zweiten Teil sind von einer übertrieben misanthropischen Anthropologie, beeinflusst durch Jean Calvin, gekennzeichnet und weisen in der Konsequenz einen supersessionistischen Ansatz auf, der nicht akzeptabel ist. Bei der (christlichen) Auslegung von Levitikus muss man sich immer darum bemühen, dass man die jüdische Leseweise nicht hermeneutisch zurücksetzt, aburteilt oder für obsolet erklärt. Leider setzt dieser Artikel so an, dass die Bestimmungen in Levitikus als großes Problem dargestellt werden, das dann allein durch Christus gelöst wird. – The article is highly problematic in at least two aspects: (1) The chapters of Leviticus 12 and 15 as well as the concept of purity and impurity are not adequately understood, which is partly due to unreflected translations and partly to the reception of secondary literature, which in turn does not do justice to the text. (2) The Christological implications in the second part are characterized by an overly misanthropic anthropology, influenced by Jean Calvin, and consequently exhibit a supersessionist approach that is not acceptable. In the (Christian) interpretation of Leviticus, one must always be careful not to hermeneutically reject, condemn or belittle the Jewish way of reading or declare it obsolete. Unfortunately, this article begins by presenting the prescriptions in Leviticus as a major problem, which is then solved by Christ alone.

Schiffman, Lawrence H., Laws Pertaining to Purification after Childbirth in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in: Satlow, Michael L. (Hg.), Strength to Strength. Essays in Honor of Shaye J.D. Cohen (Brown Judaic Studies 363), Atlanta: Brown Judaic Studies, 2018, 169–178.

Thiessen, Matthew, The Legislation of Leviticus 12 in Light of Ancient Embryology, in: Vetus Testamentum 68, 2018, 297–319. 

Show MorePublished abstract: Interpreters have provided numerous unsatisfactory reasons for why priestly literature stipulates that women endure a longer impurity after the birth of a girl than they endure after the birth of a boy. This article situates Leviticus 12 within a wide range of medical discourses, found in Hittite, Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Christian literature, in order to illuminate the priestly rationale behind this legislation. It demonstrates that these differing periods of ritual impurity relate to ancient medical beliefs that females developed more slowly than did males. These different articulation rates were believed to result in different lengths of postpartum lochial discharge, which meant that the new mother suffered different lengths of ritual impurity based on the sex of the newborn child.

Van der Horst, Pieter Willem, Bitenosh’s Orgasm (1QapGen 2:9-15), in: ders., Studies in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Ancient Judaism and Early Chrtistianity 87), Leiden 2014, 6–20. 

Show MoreAbstract: Der Artikel bietet u.a. einen Überblick über spätantike und rabbinische Vermutungen über die Entwicklung des ungeborenen Kindes (s. zu Lev 12,2).

Whitear, Sarah, Solving the Gender Problem in Leviticus 12. From Philo to Feminism, in: Annali di storia dell’esegesi 37, 2020, 299–319.

Show MoreAbstract from OTA: The Levitical postpartum purity laws have had great religious significance in both Jewish and Christian tradition right up till the present. For more than 2,000 years, people have asked why, in Leviticus 12, a new mother’s postpartum impurity is twice as long for a female baby as it is for a male baby. No hypothesis on the matter has achieved scholarly consensus hitherto. The first part of my article examines some of the various ways that the above “gender problem” has been “solved,” with attention to physiological and social explanations, as well as feminist approaches. The second part of my article then focuses on the idea, proposed by Martin Noth, that the discrepancy is due to the “cultic inferiority” of women. By examining other gender differences in the P source in Leviticus 15, and in relation to animals, creation, and genealogy, l seek to demonstrate that, for the Priestly author, women have a lesser status in the religious realm and that this is indeed the most likely reason behind the post-parturient gender discrepancy in Leviticus 12. [Adapted from published abstract – C.T.B.]

HThKAT – fortgeführt …