Levitikus 24

Lee, Bernon, Unity in Diversity. The Literary Function of the Formula of Retaliation in Leviticus 24.15-22: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38, 2014, 297–313.

Abstract »

Published abstract: This article offers two novel explanations for the staggered expression of the formula of retaliation (‘X for X’) in Lev. 24.15-22. First, ‘life for life’ in Lev. 24.18, in standing apart from other members of the formula in Lev. 24.20, points to Exod. 21.33-36 with reference to the conception of restitution as a bilateral exchange. This feature of Lev. 24.18 joins others in Lev. 24.15-22 in alluding to the laws of Exodus 21. Secondly, the removal of ‘life for life’ from the rest of the formula creates an aesthetic quality in the passage that promotes the perception of the principle of equitable restitution as foundational to the laws of Lev. 24.15-22. In a word, the design of the passage sustains connections within Lev. 24.15-22 and beyond to Exodus 21. Judicial equity emerges as the common ethos.

Nihan, Christophe, Révisions scribales et transformations du droit dans l’Israël ancien: le cas du talion (jus talionis), in: Artus, Olivier (ed.), Loi et Justice dans la Littérature du Proche-Orient ancien (BZAR 20), Wiesbaden 2013, 123–158.

Holquin, Julián Andrés González, Leviticus 24:10-23. An Outsider Perspective, in: Hebrew Studies 56, 2015, 89–102.

Rooke, Deborah W., The Blasphemer (Leciticus 24). Gender, Identity and Boundary Construction, in: Landy, Francis; Trevaskis, Leigh M.; Bibb, Bryan D. (Hg.), Text, Time, and Temple. Literary, Historical and Ritual Studies in Leviticus (Hebrew Bible Monographs 64), Sheffield 2015, 153–169.

Abstract »

Abstract from OTA: R. contributes a literary analysis of the narrative of the blasphemer in Leviticus 24 in which she argues that the narrative employs gendered language to make moral judgments about the blasphemer and to draw a boundary between Israel and the other nations. She begins by showing how laws in the Holiness Code (H) are not practical or casuistic but rather idealistic and centered around larger questions of identity. The identity thus constructed by H is: (1) masculine, in that the laws are for men and include the governance of women; (2) ethnic, in that they distinguish the men of Israel from other groups; and (3) holy, in that the people and God engage in reciprocal sanctification through the performance of these laws. Since the community as a whole is defined by this identity, these laws apply equally to foreigners residing permanently in their midst, who thereby surrender some of their own identity. In the context of Leviticus 24, the narrative of the blasphemer shifts to an outside setting with outsider characters on the edges of the community. Describing the man as „the son of an Israelite woman“ indicates something marginal about him from the start. Compared to the masculine „Israelite man,“ he is feminized and othered. By blaspheming (literally „piercing,“ and thus feminizing) the masculine holiness, the man has dishonored the deity and must be stoned by „the sons of Israel.“ Holiness, a masculine concept, is feminized by blasphemy and must be protected and restored by masculine violence against the feminized other. Finally, R. argues that the Egyptian identity of the man’s father recalls Israelite slavery in Egypt and trades in a racial stereotype of Egyptians as people who dishonor God. [Adapted from published abstract—C.T.B.]

HThKAT – fortgeführt …