Levitikus 17

Fuad, Chelcent, What has Leviticus 17 to do with Deuteronomy 12.20–27? The literary relationship between the Deuteronomic and Holiness Codes on cult centralization and animal slaughter: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 45, 2020, 20–33. Show MorePublished abstract: This article examines the literary connection between the laws of cult centralization and animal slaughter in Lev. 17 and Deut. 12.20–27. After establishing a set of criteria for determining the literary connection between two texts, the author compares and analyzes the textual evidence in Lev. 17 and Deut. 12.20–27. This study concludes that the connection between the two passages may not be one of literary dependence of one text upon the other as has been widely assumed by many scholars. Instead, even though both texts attempt to deal with the same socio-religious issues, they may have been literarily independent of each other.

Joosten, Jan, Réflections théologiques sur Lévitique 17, in: Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 93, 2013, 145–156.

Meyer, Esias E., Leviticus 17, Where P, H, and D Meet. Priorities and Presuppositions of Jacob Milgrom and Eckart Otto, in: Gane, Roy E.; Taggar-Cohen, Ada (ed.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature. The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (Resources for Biblical Study 82), Atlanta 2015, 349–367. Show MoreAbstract from OTA: The difference between Otto and Milgrom regarding Leviticus 17 ultimately lies with their “prior commitments to a particular theory of composition” to use the formulation of Michael A. Lyons. Milgrom’s reading of Leviticus 17 is so interwoven with his broader understanding of the development of P and H as preexilic documents that to adopt his read­ing of the chapter would basically mean accepting the theory of Y. Kaufmann concerning P—something that very few European scholars would be willing to do. On the other hand, to side with Otto’s reading of the chapter, one must first broadly accept J. Wellhausen’s understanding of P as a product of the exilic/postexilic period. One would also have to agree that P came after Deuteronomy—whether or not H is all that different from the rest of P. The bottom line is that deciding on a specific chronological order of texts from D, P, and H is not only based on the details of these texts. Rather, this decision is also influenced by scholarly presuppositions regarding the broader development of the Pentateuch. [Adapted from author’s conclusion—C.T.B.]

Meyer, Esias E., When Synchrony Overtakes Diachrony. Perspectives on the Relationship between the Deuteronomic Code and the Holiness Code, in: Old Testament Essays 30, 2017, 749–769. Show MorePublished abstract: The review article offers a critique on the recent book by Benjamin Kilchör [Mosetora und Jahwetora. Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12–26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 21), Wiesbaden 2015]. I approach his work from the perspective of Leviticus and recent debates on this biblical book. I start by examining Kilchör’s introduction and the methodology he selected, and then focus on Lev 19 and 25 and their diachronic relation to texts from Exodus and Deuteronomy. The article finds many of the arguments offered by Kilchör to be wanting.

Najman, Hindy, Imitatio Dei and the Formation of the Subject in Ancient Judaism, in: JBL 140, 2021, 309–323.  Show MorePublished abstract: This article considers the relationship between imitatio dei and selfhood in ancient Jewish traditions. This relationship is considered across a wide range of texts that are engaged in theological reflection and a complex practice of reading, with philosophical implications. Topics such as human essence, divine creation, and perfectionist aspirations are explored as part of the characterization of selfhood in the Hebrew Bible and beyond. – In part II, the article deals with Gen 9:4-6 and Lev 17:10-14.

Teeter, D. Andrew, Textgeschichte, Fortschreibung, und Rechtshermeneutik: Das Problem der ‚profanen‘ Schlachtung in Lev 17: HeBAI (Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel) 2, 2013, 287–314. Show MorePublished abstract: This article argues for the importance of considering extant textual variation in connection with inner-literary processes of development (redaction, Fortschreibung, inner-biblical exegesis), as well as in light of the broader history of interpretation. The textual plus at Leviticus 17:4, preserved in several ancient witnesses, represents a classic case that has received very mixed evaluation, both with regard to its textual status (whether primary or secondary), and with regard to its potential legal/exegetical function. After surveying a variety of textual and interpretive assessments, the case is argued that this plus represents a deliberate exegetical expansion serving to clarify ambiguities and to specify that it is specifically slaughter for the purpose of sacrifice that is at issue in Lev 17:3–7. This variant represents an early but complex analogical effort to interpret the legal requirements of Leviticus 17 in light of Deuteronomy 12. In this way, text history takes up and extends trajectories inherent within the internal literary development of the scriptural text.

Wright, David P., Profane Versus Sacrificial Slaughter. The Priestly Recasting of the Yahwist Flood Story, in: Gane, Roy E.; Taggar-Cohen, Ada (ed.), Current Issues in Priestly and Related Literature. The Legacy of Jacob Milgrom and Beyond (Resources for Biblical Study 82), Atlanta 2015, 125–154.

HThKAT – fortgeführt …