Levitikus 17

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.

Abstract »

Abstract 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.]

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.

Abstract »

Published 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 …