Leviticus, Volume 4 (4) (Word Biblical Commentary) [Revised ed.] 9780310521976, 0310521971

Citation preview

Word Biblical Commentary

9780310521976_Lev_vol4.indd 1

1/8/15 2:10 PM

Editorial Board Old Testament Editor: Nancy L. deClaissé-Walford (2011 – ) New Testament Editor: Peter H. Davids (2013 – )

Past Editors General Editors

Ralph P. Martin (2012 – 2013) Bruce M. Metzger (1997 – 2007)

David A. Hubbard (1977 – 1996) Glenn W. Barker (1977 – 1984)

Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts (1977 – 2011)

James W. Watts (1997 – 2011)

New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin (1977 – 2012)

Lynn Allan Losie (1997 – 2013)

Volumes 1 Genesis 1 – 15 . . . . . . . . . Gordon J. Wenham 2 Genesis 16 – 50 . . . . . . . . Gordon J. Wenham 3 Exodus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John I. Durham 4 Leviticus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John E. Hartley 5 Numbers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Philip J. Budd 6a Deuteronomy 1:1 – 21:9, 2nd ed.. . Duane L. Christensen 6b Deuteronomy 21:10 – 34:12 . . . . . . Duane L. Christensen 7a Joshua 1-12, 2nd ed.. . . . . . . .Trent C. Butler 7b Joshua 13-24, 2nd ed.. . . . . . .Trent C. Butler 8 Judges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Trent C. Butler 9 Ruth – Esther. . . . . . . . . . . . Frederic W. Bush 10 1 Sam­uel, 2nd ed.. . . . . . . . . .Ralph W. Klein 11 2  Sam­uel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. A. Anderson 12 1 Kings, 2nd ed. . . . . . . . . . Simon J. Devries 13 2 Kings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T. R. Hobbs 14 1  Chron­icles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roddy Braun 15 2  Chron­icles . . . . . . . . . .Raymond B. Dillard 16 Ezra, Nehemiah . . . . . . H. G. M. Williamson 17 Job 1 – 20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David J. A. Clines 18a Job 21 – 37. . . . . . . . . . . . . . David J. A. Clines 18b Job 38 – 42. . . . . . . . . . . . . . David J. A. Clines 19 Psalms 1 – 50, 2nd ed.. . . . . Peter C. Craigie, Marvin E. Tate 20 Psalms 51 – 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . Marvin E. Tate 21 Psalms 101 – 150, rev. ed. . . . . Leslie C. Allen 22 Proverbs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roland E. Murphy 23a Ecclesiastes . . . . . . . . . . . . Roland E. Murphy 23b Song of Songs/Lamentations . . . . Duane H.  Garrett, Paul R. House 24 Isaiah 1 – 33, rev. ed.. . . . . . John D. W. Watts 25 Isaiah 34 – 66, rev. ed.. . . . . John D. W. Watts 26 Jeremiah 1 – 25 . . . . . . . . . . Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, Joel F. Drinkard Jr. 27 Jeremiah 26 – 52 . . . . . . . . .Gerald L. Keown, Pamela J. Scalise, Thomas G. Smothers

28 Ezekiel 1 – 19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leslie C. Allen 29 Ezekiel 20 – 48. . . . . . . . . . . . . Leslie C. Allen 30 Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John E. Goldingay 31 Hosea – Jonah** . . . . . . . . . . . Douglas Stuart 32 Micah – Malachi**. . . . . . . . . .Ralph L. Smith 33a Matthew 1 – 13. . . . . . . . . . Donald A. Hagner 33b Matthew 14 – 28. . . . . . . . . Donald A. Hagner 34a Mark 1 – 8:26**. . . . . . . . . Robert A. Guelich 34b Mark 8:27 – 16:20 . . . . . . . . . . Craig A. Evans 35a Luke 1 – 9:20. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Nolland 35b Luke 9:21 – 18:34. . . . . . . . . . . . John Nolland 35c Luke 18:35 – 24:53. . . . . . . . . . . John Nolland 36 John, 2nd ed. . . . .George R. Beasley-Murray 37a Acts 1 – 14* . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephen J. Walton 37b Acts 15 – 28* . . . . . . . . . . . Stephen J. Walton 38a Romans 1 – 8. . . . . . . . . . . James D. G. Dunn 38b Romans 9 – 16. . . . . . . . . . James D. G. Dunn 39 1  Co­rin­thi­ans* . . . . . . . . . Andrew D. Clarke 40 2  Co­rin­thi­ans, rev. ed. . . . . . Ralph P. Martin 41 Galatians. . . . . . . . Richard N. Longenecker 42 Ephesians . . . . . . . . . . . . .Andrew T. Lincoln 43 Philippians, rev. ed.. . . Gerald F. Hawthorne, rev. by Ralph P. Martin 44 Colossians, Philemon**. . . Peter T. O’Brien 45 1 & 2 Thes­salo­nians**. . . . . . . . . .F. F. Bruce 46 Pastoral Epistles . . . . . . . William D. Mounce 47a Hebrews 1 – 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . William L. Lane 47b Hebrews 9 – 13. . . . . . . . . . . . William L. Lane 48 James. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ralph P. Martin 49 1 Peter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. Ramsey Michaels 50 Jude, 2 Peter**. . . . . . .Richard J. Bauckham 51 1, 2, 3, John, rev. ed.. . . . Stephen S. Smalley 52a Revelation 1 – 5. . . . . . . . . . . . David E. Aune 52b Revelation 6 – 16. . . . . . . . . . . David E. Aune 52c Revelation 17 – 22. . . . . . . . . . David E. Aune

*forthcoming as of 2014 **in revision as of 2014

9780310521976_Lev_vol4.indd 2

1/8/15 2:10 PM

4

Word Biblical Commentary Leviticus

John E. Hartley General Editors: Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, Glenn W. Barker Old Testament Editors: John D. W. Watts, James W. Watts New Testament Editors: Ralph P. Martin, Lynn Allan Losie

9780310521976_Lev_vol4.indd 3

1/8/15 2:10 PM

ZONDERVAN Leviticus, Volume 4 Copyright © 1992 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Previously published as Leviticus 1-27. Formerly published by Thomas Nelson, now published by Zondervan, a division of HarperCollinsChristian Publishing. Requests for information should be addressed to: Zondervan, 3900 Sparks Dr. SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49546 This edition: ISBN 978-0-310-52197-6 The Library of Congress has cataloged the original edition as follows: Library of Congress Control Number: 2005295211 All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission. The author’s own translation of the Scripture text appears in italic type under the heading Translation. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews, without the prior permission of the publisher.

9780310521976_Lev_vol4.indd 4

1/8/15 2:10 PM

To my daughters Joyce R uham ah a n d Johannah L yn n two precious blessings from the LORD

Contents Author’s Preface Editorial Preface Abbreviations Commentary Bibliography Main Bibliography I n t r o d u c t io n

T he Hebrew T ext of Leviticus Structure o f Leviticus A uthorship and Origin T he History o f the Exposition of Leviticus T he Message o f Leviticus

ix xi xii xix xxi xxix xxix XXX XXXV

xliii lvi

L ev iticu s : T ext and C ommentary

I.

Regulations for Sacrifices (1:1-7:38) A. H eading to the Sacrificial Legislation and the Book (1:1-2) B. Regulations for T hree C om m on Sacrifices (1:3-3:17) 1. Regulation for the Whole Offering (1:3-17) Excursus: ‫ צ ל ה‬, “the whole offenng"” Excursus: Laying on of Hand(s) 2. Regulation for the Grain O ffering (2:1-16) Excursus: ‫מנחה‬ 3. Regulation for the Offering of Well-Being (3:1-17) Excursus: The Offering of Well-Being C. Regulation for the Purification Offering (4:1-5:13) Excursus: T he Purification Offering Excursus: ‫ כ פ ר‬, “make expiation, atone” D. Regulation for the Reparation Offering (5:14-26[6:7]) Excursus: □‫ א ש‬, “guilt, reparation offenng” E. F urther Instructions about the Various Sacrifices (6:1 [8]-7:38) II. O rdination o f the Priests and the First Sacrifices at the T en t of M eeting (8:1-10:20) A. O rdination of Aaron as High Priest and His Sons as Priests (8:1-36) B. T he First Public Sacrifices at the T en t of M eeting (9:1-24) C. T he Death of Two Priests and A ttendant Regulations (10:1-20) III. Laws on Ritual Purity (11:1-15:33) Excursus: Ritual Purity A. Instructions on the Classification of Animals as Clean and U nclean (11:1-47) B. Instructions on Ritual Purity of a W om an Who Has Given Birth (12:1-8)

1 7 12

12 17 19 25 29

33 37 43 55 63 72 76

86 103 105 117 126 139 140 147 164

viii

Contents

C. Instructions on Grievous Growths (13:1-14:57) Excursus: ‫ צ ר ע ת‬and Leprosy D. Instructions on U ncleanness from Bodily Emissions (15:1-33) IV. Regulations and C alendar for the Day of A tonem ent (16:1-34) V. Laws on Holy Living (17:1-26:46) A. Laws about Sacrificing Domestic Animals and regarding Blood (17:1-16) B. Laws Governing the E xtended Family (18:1-30) Excursus: The Phrase “I Am Yahweh (Your God)” C. Laws and E xhortations to Holy Living (19:1-37) D. Laws with Penalties for Sacrifice to Molek, Sorcery, and Sexual Offenses (20:1-27) Excursus: Molek E. Special Laws for the Priests (21:1-24) F. Laws regarding the Priests’ Eating Sacred Food (22:1-16) G. Laws about Animals Acceptable for Sacrifice (22:17-33) H. T he C alendar of Festivals (23:1-44) Excursus: Calendars in the OT and Israel’s Pilgrimage Festivals I. Regulations regarding Oil for the Lam pstand and Bread for the Table of the Presence (24:1-9) J. A Case o f Blasphemy and Laws on Personal Injury (24:10-23) K. T he C alendar for Seven-Year Cycles and Blessings and Curses (25:1-26:46) 1. Seven-Year Cycles: The Sabbatical Year and the Year of Jubilee (25:1-55) Excursus: The Year of Jubilee 2. Some G eneral C om m andm ents on Faithful W orship (26:1-2) 3. Blessings and Curses (26:3-46) VI. Laws on Tithes and Offerings (27:1-34) Indexes

170 187 201

216 247 260 280 291 301 326 333 341 352 357 363 376 394 403 414 415 434 448 451 476 489

Author’s Preface I find th at writing a com m entary on a book of the Bible is a hum bling experience, for I am always com ing up against the obstacle o f my lim ited knowledge. Nevertheless, it is an enriching experience, for I have the great privilege of pon d erin g G od’s word, line upon line, in ord er to wrestle from the text its lifegiving m eaning. At the center of the P entateuch stands one of the driest and yet m ost sublime books o f the Bible. It both speaks of m undane m atters and leads its readers into the sphere o f the holy. Hopefully the insights offered in this volume will help other readers overcome the natural apathy toward this book and en ter into its world to discover its riches. Leviticus provides an understanding o f holiness-sin-atonement, the essential elem ents of the divine-hum an relationship. F urtherm ore, ju st as Israel was called to be a holy nation in o rder to function as a royal priesthood to the nations, the church is called to be a holy people in o rd er that it may serve all the peoples of the world as a royal priesthood. A fuller understanding of both that call and that role is provided by the study of Leviticus. T he form at o f this series offers the opportunity to investigate the rich message o f Leviticus from various perspectives. T he a u th o r’s own literal translation is supported by technical textual and lexical inform ation in the Notes. In the Comment the m eaning o f the text is explored in its canonical context. T hen the ideas o f the passage are recounted from a biblical theological perspective, and these theological them es are pursued into the NT in the Explanation. T he section called Form/ Structure/Setting provides the opportunity to look at the structure of each section with special attention to its rhetorical design, since this m aterial was com posed for the oral instruction of the congregation. In this section some observations about the literary history of the m aterial are also given, and there is some interaction with traditio-historical work on the passage. Traditio-historical m atters are n o t pursued extensively, however, because of the lim itations of space and skill. I am very grateful to Dr. Jo h n D. W. Watts for inviting me to write this volume and for his patient encouragem ent along the way. At crucial ju nctures he has provided wise and helpful counsel. To Dr. Rolf P. Knierim, Professor of O ld T estam ent at the School of Theology at C larem ont and Avery Professor of Religion at C larem ont G raduate School, I wish to extend my warmest appreciation for his encouragem ent. He gladly perm itted m e to atten d some of his OT seminars, m ade available some protocols from those seminars, and has supported my inclusion of m aterial vital to the interpretation of a passage with p ro p er docum entation. T he structural outlines for chap. 1 and 4:15:13 rely heavily on work done in his seminars. In addition, I have learned from Dr. K nierim ’s work through many of his students. They have proven to be a delightful, m ost cooperative group. Dr. H enry Sun, who wrote his thesis on the Holiness Code, has been very helpful. Along the way he provided m e with extensive bibliographic inform ation. U pon com pletion of his thesis he provided m e a copy, and I have m ade considerable use of it. He has also been available for exchanging ideas. Mr. William Yarchin p en n ed the history o f research in Leviticus, m aking a significant contribution to this work. He also offered a critique o f chaps. 1-14. Dr. Stephen A.

X

A uthor ’s Preface

Reed assisted in com posing parts of chap. 24, specifically the structure of both sections, m aterial on tending the lam pstand and preparing the bread for the table o f Presence, and m aterial both on the incident of the p erso n ’s cursing Yahweh during a fight and on blasphem y in general. H e also provided insightful feedback on Form/Structure/Setting for chaps. 16-27. O ne of my colleagues, Dr. Steven Wilkens, assisted in the com position of two excursuses: one on the feasts in chap. 23 and one on the year of Jubilee in chap. 25. A form er student, Dr. Tim othy Dwyer, p rep ared a m anuscript on Molek which has been edited and augm ented for an excursus found in chap. 20. A friend, Dr. R obert B enninger, who has a diplom a in Tropical M edicine and Hygiene from the Ross Institute at the University of L ondon, reviewed the m aterial for chaps. 12-15 and offered valuable suggestions from the perspective of a physician. To each of these I extend my hearty thanks. I am in debted to Mrs. Lark Rilling for careful editorial work on the m anuscript. I wish to thank my wife for h er hard work in typing the m any editions of this work. For the work o f the library staff at Azusa Pacific University in locating many im p o rtan t articles and volumes, I am very grateful. I wish to thank the adm inistration of Azusa Pacific University, particularly Dr. Les Blank, Dean, C. P. H aggard School o f Theology, and Dr. D onald G rant, ViceP resident for Academic Affairs, for their encouragem ent in many small and im portant ways. Many students and colleagues have graciously assisted in a variety o f ways, including reading and com m enting on portions of this work; I thank Miles Van Pelt for doing many chores. Clifford A nderson has provided some key bibliographic inform ation and copies of significant works. D uring the years of writing this m anuscript I have experienced a serious illness. I wish to offer praise to the gracious, holy G od for providing the strength to bring this task to com pletion. Glendora, California

J ohn

E.

H

a r tley

Editorial Preface T he launching o f the Word Biblical Commentary brings to fulfillm ent an enterprise o f several years’ planning. T he publishers and the m em bers of the editorial b oard m et in 1977 to explore the possibility of a new com m entary on the books o f the Bible th at would incorporate several distinctive features. Prospective readers o f these volumes are entitled to know what such features were in ten d ed to be; w hether the aims of the com m entary have been fully achieved tim e alone will tell. First, we have tried to cast a wide n e t to include as contributors a n u m b er of scholars from aro u n d the world who n o t only share ou r aims, b u t are in the m ain engaged in the ministry of teaching in university, college, and seminary. They rep resen t a rich diversity o f denom inational allegiance. T he broad stance of our contributors can rightly be called evangelical, and this term is to be u nderstood in its positive, historic sense of a com m itm ent to Scripture as divine revelation, and to the tru th and power of the Christian gospel. T hen, the com m entaries in o u r series are all com m issioned and w ritten for the purpose o f inclusion in the Word Biblical Commentary. Unlike several o f ou r distinguished counterparts in the field of com m entary writing, there are no translated works, originally w ritten in a non-English language. Also, our com m entators were asked to p rep are their own ren d erin g o f the original biblical text and to use those languages as the basis of their own com m ents and exegesis. W hat may be claim ed as distinctive with this series is that it is based on the biblical languages, yet it seeks to make the technical and scholarly approach to a theological und erstan d in g o f Scripture understandable by—and useful to— the fledgling student, the working m inister, and colleagues in the guild o f professional scholars and teachers as well. Finally, a word m ust be said about the form at o f the series. T he layout, in clearly defined sections, has been consciously devised to assist readers at different levels. Those wishing to learn about the textual witnesses on which the translation is offered are invited to consult the section h ead ed Notes. If the read ers’ concern is with the state o f m odern scholarship on any given portion o f Scripture, they should tu rn to the sections o f Bibliography and Form/Structure/Setting. For a clear exposition o f the passage’s m eaning and its relevance to the ongoing biblical revelation, the Comment and concluding Explanation are designed expressly to m eet th at need. T h ere is therefore som ething for everyone who may pick up and use these volumes. If these aims com e anywhere n ear realization, the intention of the editors will have been m et, and the labor o f ou r team of contributors rewarded. G eneral Editors:

David A. Hubbard Glenn W.Barker† O ld Testam ent: John D. W. Watts New Testam ent: Ralph P. Martin

Abbreviations

P erio d ica ls , Serials and R eference W orks

AASOR AB

Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research Anchor Bible

AER A fO AHw

A m m ca n Ecclesiastical Review Archiv fiir Onentforschung W. von Soden (ed.), Akkademisches Handworterbuch (Wiesbaden: Otto

AI

Harrassowitz, 1965-81) R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel, tr. J. McHugh (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965)

AJSL A JT

Amencan Journal o f Semitic Languages and Literature American Journal o f Theology

ALUOS AnBib

Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society Analecta bíblica J. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd ed. (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1969)

ANET Ang

Angelicum

AnOr AOAT

Analecta orientaba Alter Orient und Altes Testament

ArO r ARW

Archiv orientalni Archiv fü r Religionswissenschaft

ASOR

American Schools of Oriental Research

ASTI

A n n u a l o f the Swedish Theological Institute

ATAbh ATD

Alttestamendiche Abhandlungen Das Alte Testament Deutsch

ATR

Anglican Theological Review

ATSAT AUMSR

Arbeiten zur Text und Sprache im Alten Testament Andrews University Monographs, Studies inReligion G. H. Dalman, Arbeit u n d Sittein Paldstina, 1928-42 (reprint, Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1987)

AuS AU SS BA BAR BASO R

Andrews University Seminary Studies Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin o f the American Schools o f (M ental Research

BBB BDB

Bonner biblische Beitráge F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon o f

BHS

the Old Testament Biblia hebraica stuttgartensia

BHT

Beitráge zur historischen Theologie

Bib

Bíblica

BibB BibOr

Biblische Beitráge Bíblica et orientaba

BJRL

Bulletin o f the John Rylands University Library o f Manchester

Abbreviations

BKAT

Biblischer Kommentar: Altes Testament

BN BO BSac BT B TB BVC

Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca orientalis Bibliotheca Sacra The Bible Translator Biblical Theology Bulletin Bible et vie chrétienne

BWANT BZ

BZAW BZNW CAD

Beitráge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zátschúft Beihefte zur ZAW Beihefte zur Z N W The AssyHan Dictionary o f the Oriental Institute o f the University o f Chicago

CB CBC

The Century Bible Cambridge Bible Commentary

CBQ C JT

Catholic Biblical Quarterly Canadian Journal o f Theology

COT

Gispen commentar

CRAIBL C TM DBAT D BSup Encjud E rbA uf ETR E vQ E vT ExpTim FF

Comptes rendus de TAcadémie des inscriptions et belles-lettres Concordia Theological Monthly Dielheimer Blatter zum Alten Testament Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplement Encyclopaedia judaica (1971) Erbe u n d Auftrag Etudes théologiques et religieuses Evangelical Quarterly Evangelische Theologie Expository Times Forschungen u n d Fortschritte

FRLANT GKC

Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gesenius’Hebrew Grammer, ed. E. Kautzsch, tr. A. E. Cowley

HAR

Hebrew A n n u a l Review

HAT HKAT

Handbuch zum Alten Testament Handkommentar zum Alten Testament

HR

History o f Religions

HSAT HSM HSS

Die Heilige Shrift des Alten Testaments Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Semitic Series

H TR HUCA IB H S

H arvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College A n n u a l

ICC IDB TDBSup IE] IL R

xiii

B. Waltke and M. O’Connor, A n Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) International Critical Commentary G. A. Buttrick (ed.), Interpreter’s Dictionary o f the Bible Supplementary volume to IDB Israel Exploration Journal Israel Law Review

Abbreviations

XIV

In t ISBE

Interpretation

JA JA A R JANESC U JA O S

Journal asiatique Journal o f the American Academy o f Religion Journal o fth e A n d e n t Near Eastern Sodety o f Columbia University Journal o f the AmeHcan Oriental Society M. Jas trow, A Dictionary o f the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, 2 vols. (Brooklyn, NY:

Jas trow

G. Bromiley et al. (eds.), The International Standard BibleEncyelopedia, revised

Traditional Press, Inc., n.d.) JB L JB R JC S JJS JN ES

Joüon

Journal Journal Journal Journal Journal

o f Biblical Literature o f Bible and Religion o f Cuneiform Studies o f Jewish Studies o f Near Eastern Studies P. P. Joüon, Grammaire de Thebreu biblique (Rome: Pontifical Biblical

Institute, 1947) JPOS JQ R JR E JRelS JSJ JS O T

Journal o f the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal o f Religious Ethics Journal o f Religious Studies Journal fo r the Study ofJudaism Journal fo r the Study o f the Old Testament

JSOTSup

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

JSS JTS

Journal o f Semitic Studies Journal o f Theological Studies

KAT KB

E. Sellin (ed.), Kommentar zum Alten Testament L. Kohler and W. Baumgartner, Hebraisches u n d aramaisches Lexicon zum Alten Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1967-90)

KD

Kerygma u n d Dogma

KEH KHC

Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament

LTQ M IO

Lexington Theological Quarterly M ittdlungen des Instituís fü r Orientforschung

MRS

Mission de Ras Shamra

M TZ

M ünchener theologische Zdtschrifi

NBC NCB NICOT

New Bible Commentary New Century Bible New International Commentary on the Old Testament

NRT NT

L a nouvelle revue théologique N ovum Testamentum

OBT

Overtures to Biblical Theology

O LZ Or

Orientalische L iteraturzdtung Orientalia (Rome)

OTL

Old Testament Library

OTS PAAJR PEQ

Oudtestamentische Studien Proceedings o f the American Academy o f Jewish Research Palestine Exploration Quarterly

Abbreviations

PG PIR

XV

POS

J. Migne, Patrología graeca Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, vol. 1, Pentateuch, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1979) J. Migne, Patrología latina D. N. Freedman and K. A. Mathews, The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11 QpaleoLev) (American Schools of Oriental Research; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985) Pretoria Oriental Series

RB RBiblt REJ Rev(¿ RHPR RHR RIDA R SR Sal

Revue biblique Rivista bíblica italiana (Rome) Revue des études juives Revue de Qumran Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses Revue de Thistoire des religions Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité Recherches des sciences religieuses Salesianum

SANT SBLASP SBLDS SBLMS SBS SBT

Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Society of Biblical Literature Abstracts and Seminar Papers SBL Dissertation Series SBL Monograph Series Stuttgarter Bibelstudien Studies in Biblical Theology

ScEc SC T T

Sciences ecclésiastiques L Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Terminology and Theology, SJLA 36

SJLA

(Leiden: Brill, 1983) Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity

SJT ST StBib StLit StMor SW JT

Scottish Journal o f Theology Studia theologica Studia Bíblica et Theologica Studia litúrgica Studia Moralia Southwest Journal o f Theology

TBü

Theologische Bücherei G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), tr. G.W. Bromiley, Theological

PL PLS

TD NT

Dictionary o f the New Testament TD O T

G. Botterweck and H. Ringgren (eds.), tr. D. Green, Theological

TGUOS TH AT

Dictionary o f the Old Testament Transactions o f the Glasgow University O nental Society E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament, 2 vols. (Munich: Kaiser; Zurich:

TLZ

Theologische Literaturzeitung

Theologischer Verlag, 1971-76) TOTC

Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TQ TRE

Theologische QuartalschHft

G. Krause and G. Müller (eds.), TheologischeRealenzyklopadie (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1983)

Abbreviations

XVI

TR u T Today TW O T

Theologische Rundschau Theology Today

TynBnl TZ

Tyndale Bulletin Theologische Zeitschrift

R. L. Harris et al. (eds.), Theological Wordbook o f the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago: Moody, 1980)

UCOP

University of Cambridge Oriental Publications

UF

Ugaritische Forschungen C. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook Vetus Testamentum V T Supplements

UT VT

VTSup WBC WMANT

Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament

W ZK M ZA W ZDPV ZKT ZL T K ZST ZTK

Wiener Zeitschrift fu r die Kunde des Morgenlandes Zeitschnft fü r die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Z£itschrift des deutschen Paldstina-vereins Zeitshriftfar katholische Theologie Zeitschnft f ü r die gesamte lutherische Theologie u n d Kirche Zeitschnft fiir systematische Theologie Zeitschrift fü r Theologie u n d Kirche

H ebrew G rammar

abs acc adj conj constr dir obj fem gen h iph hoph im pf impv

absolute accusative adjective conjunction construct direct object fem inine genitive hiphil hophal im perfect imperative

indir obj in f mase niph obj pass pf pi prep ptep sg

subj

indirect object infinitive masculine niphal object passive perfect plural preposition participle singular subject

T extual N o tes

Akk Arab Aram Eng Eth Gk. Heb. LXX LXXA

Akkadian Arabic Aramaic English Ethiopic Greek Hebrew Septuagint LXX ms, Alexandrian Codex

LXX® LXXa ms(s) MT Sam Syr Ugar Vg

LXX ms, Vatican Codex LXX ms, original reading m anuscript (s) Masoretic Text Sam aritan P entateuch Syriac Ugaritic Vulgate

Abbreviations

χγη

Biblical and Aprocryphal Bo oks

Gen Exod Lev Num D eut Josh Ju d g Ruth 1-2 Sam 1-2 Kgs 1-2 C hr Ezra N eh Esth Jo b Ps(s) Prov Eccl C ant Isa Je r Lam Ezek Dan Hos Joel Amos O bad Jo n ah Mic Nah

Genesis Exodus Leviticus N um bers D euteronom y Joshua Judges Ruth 1-2 Samuel 1-2 Kings 1-2 Chronicles Ezra N ehem iah Esther Jo b Psalm (s) Proverbs Ecclesiastes Canticles, Song of Solom on Isaiah Jerem iah Lam entations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos O badiah Jo n ah Micah N ahum

H ab Zeph Hag Zech Mai Tob Jd t Sir

1-3 Macc Matt Mark Luke Jo h n Acts Rom 1-2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1-2 Thess 1-2 Tim Titus Phlm H eb Jas 1-2 Pet 1 -3 Jo h n Ju d e Rev

H abakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Tobit Ju d ith Ecclesiasticus or The Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach 1-3 Maccabees Matthew Mark Luke Jo h n Acts Rom ans 1-2 C orinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1-2 Thessalonians 1-2 Tim othy Titus Philem on Hebrews Jam es 1-2 Peter 1 -3 Jo h n Ju d e Revelation

E xtrabiblical J ew ish and C hristian L iterature

b. CD Hul. Jos., Ant. Jub. m. Meg. Menah. Neg.

Babylonian Talm ud Cairo Damascus D ocum ent Hullin Josephus, Antiquities Jubilees M ishna Megilla Menahot Negacim

Nid. Pesah. 1 QS 11 QpaleoLev Qidd. Sank. Tacan. T. Gad Tg Tg. Onq.

Niddah Pesahim M anuel of Discipline T he Paleo-Leviticus Scroll from Cave 11 Qiddusin Sanhednn Tacanit Testament of Gad Targum Targum Onqelos

Abbreviations

xviii Tg. Neof. Tg. Ps.-J.

Targum Neofiti 1 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan

Yebam. Zebah

Yebamot Ixbahim

n. n.d.

note no date New English Bible neue folge New International Version New Jewish Publication Society Translation new series New T estam ent Old T estam ent re p rin t Revised Standard Version Semitic translated; translator translation verse(s) sectio n /p arag rap h root

M iscellaneous A .D .

ANE AV B .C .

chap(s). cols. diss. ed(s). E ET FS H

J JB K JV

lit. ms(s)

Anno Domini A ncient N ear East A uthorized Version Before Christ chapters (s) colum ns dissertation edition; edited by; editor (s) the Elohistic source English translation Festschrift Holiness Code the Yahwistic source Jerusalem Bible King Jam es Version literally m anuscript (s)

NEB

n.f. N IV N JPS

n.s. NT OT repr. R SV

Sem tr. trans. V(v)

§(

V

Commentary Bibliography Allis, O. T. “Leviticus.” In New Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970. Baentsch, B. Exodus , Leviticus, Numen. HKAT. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. Bamberger, B. J. The Torah: A Modern Commentary. III. Leviticus. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1979. Bertholet, A. Leviticus. KHC. Tübingen/Leipzig: Mohr, 1901. Bonar, A. A. A Commentary on the Book o f Leviticus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978. Calvin, J. Commentañes on the Lour Last Books o f Moses. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint of 1852 translation. Cazelles, H. Le Lévitique. La Bible de Jérusalem. Paris: Cerf, 1958. Chapman, A. T., and Streane, A. W. The Book o f Leviticus in the Revised Version. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: UP, 1914. Clamer, A. Le Lévitique. La Sainte Bible. Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1940. Clements, R. E. “Leviticus.” In The Broadman Bible Commentary. Ed. C. Allen. Vol 2. Nashville: Broadman, 1970. Coleman, R. O. “Leviticus.” In Wycliffe Bible Commentary. Chicago: Moody, 1962. Damrosch, D. “Leviticus.” In The Literary Guide to the Bible. Ed. R. Alter and F. Kermode. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1987. 66-77. Dillmann, A. Das Bucher Exodus u n d Leviticus KEH. Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1880. Driver, S. R., and White, H. A. The Book o f Leviticus. New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1898. Eerdmans, B. D. Alttestamentliche Studien: 4. Das Buck Leviticus. Giessen: Topelmann, 1912. Elliger, K. Leviticus. HAT. Tübingen: Mohr, 1966. Erdman, C. R. The Book o f Leviticus. New York: Revell, 1951. Faley, R. J. “Leviticus.” In Jerome Bible Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1968. Ginsburg, C. D. “Leviticus.” In Ellicott,s Commentary. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954. Gispen, W. H. Het Boek Leviticus. Commentaar op het Oude Testament. Kampen: Kok, 1950. Harris, R. L. “Leviticus.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary with the New International Version o f the Holy Bible. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library; Zondervan, 1990. 2:499-654. Harrison, R. K. Leviticus: A n Introduction and Commentary. TOTC. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1980. Heinisch, R Das Buch Leviticus. HSAT. Bonn: Hanstein, 1935. Hertz, J. H. Leviticus. The Pentateuch and Haftorahs. London: Oxford UP, 1932. Hoffmann, D. Das Buch Leviticus /-//. Berlin: Poppelauer, 1905/06. Holzinger, H. “Leviticus.” In Die Heilige S h ñft des Alten Testament. Ed. A. Bertholet. Tübingen, 1922/23. Keil, C. F., and Delitzsch, F. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. 2. The Pentateuch. Tr. J. Martin. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956. Kellogg, S. Leviticus. The Expositor’s Bible. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1900. Kennedy, A. R. S. Leviticus and Numbers. CB. Edinburgh: T. C. 8c E. C. Jack; New York: Henry Frowde, 1910. Kinlaw, D. “Leviticus.” In Beacon Bible Commentary. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1969. Knight, G. A. F. Leviticus. Edinburgh: Saint Andrews Press; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1981. Kornfeld, W. Das Buch Leviticus. Die Welt der Bible. Kleinkommentare zur Heiligen Schrift 15. Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1972. ----------- . Levitikus. Die neue Echter-Bibel. Würzburg: Echter, 1983. Lamparter, H. “In Gottes Schuld: Ausgewáhlte Texte aus den dritten und vierten Buch Moses übersetzt und ausgelegt.” In Die Botschaft des Alten Testaments 7. Stuttgart, 1980. 5-174. Lange, J. P., and Gardiner, F. Leviticus. Reprint. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d. Levine, B. A. Leviticus ‫דקדא‬. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Lofthouse, W. F. “Leviticus.” In A Commentary on the Bible. Ed. A. Peake. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1919. Maarsingh, B. Leviticus. De Prediking van het Oude Testament. Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1974. Micklem, N. “The Book of Leviticus.” In The Interpreter’s Bible. Ed. G. A. Buttrick. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953. 2:3-134. Milgrom, J. “The Book of Leviticus.” In The Interpreter’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible. Ed. C. Laymon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971.----------- . Leviticus 1-16. AB 3. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Noordtzij, A. Leviticus. Bible Student’s Commentary. Tr. R. Togtman. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. North, C. R. “Leviticus.” In The Abingdon Bible Commentary. Ed. F. Eiselen, E. Lewis, and D. Downey. New York: Abingdon, 1929.----------- . “Leviticus.” In A Commentary on the Bible. Ed.

XX

C ommentary Bibliography

J. Dummelow. New York: MacMillan, 1908. Noth, M. Leviticus: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster; London: SCM, 1965. Payne, J. B. “Leviticus.” In The Biblical Expositor. Ed. C. Henry. Vol. 1. London: Pickering & Inglis, 1960. Porter, J. R. Leviticus. CBC. Cambridge: UP, 1976. Rashi. Leviticus: Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and R a sh i’s Commentary. Tr. M. Rosenbaum and A. Silbermann. Jerusalem: The Silbermann Family, 1965. Rendtorff, R. Leviticus. BKAT 3/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1985. Saalschutz, J. L. Das Mosaische Recht. 1853; repr. Berlin: Heymann, 1974. Saydon, P. P. “Levidcus.” In A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scnpture. Ed. B. Orchard. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1953. 229-44. Snaith, N. H. Leviticus and Numbers. NCB. London: Oliphants, 1977. Wenham, G. J. The Book o f Leviticus. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Main Bibliography

T exts and T extual C riticism

Angerstorfer, A. “1st 4QTgLev das Menetekel der neueren Targumforschuung?” B N 15 (1981) 55-75. Birnbaum, S. A. “The Leviticus Fragments from the Cave.” BASO R 118 (1950) 20-27. Callaway, P. “5RBYH in the Temple Scroll XXIV,8.” Rev(¿ 12/46 (1986) 26970. Déaut, R. le. “A propos d’une legón du codex Neofiti 1 (Lev. v 21).” V T 17 (1967) 3625 3 ----------- - “Lévitique xxii 26-xxiii 44 dans le Targum palestinien: De Γimportance des gloses du codex Neofiti 1 ” V T 18 (1968) 458-71. Emerton, J. A. “Unclean Birds and the Origins of the Peshitta.”/SS7 (1962) 203-11. Freedman, D. N. “Variant Readings in the Leviticus Scroll from Qumran Cave 11.” C BQ 36 (1974) 525-34.----------- and Mathews, K. A. The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll (11 QpaleoLev). ASOR; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Grossfeld, B. The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers. The Aramaic Bible 8. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988. Kellermann, D. “Nachlese.” ZAW88 (1976) 41415. Komfeld, W. “Ein unpublizierter Levitikustext.” ZA W 87 (1975) 211-12. Lane, D. J. “‘The best words in the best order’: Some Comments on the ‘Syriacing’ of Leviticus.” VT 39 (1989) 468-79. Mathews, K. A. “The Leviticus Scroll (llQpaleoLev) and the Text of the Hebrew Bible.” CBQ 48 (1986) 171-207.----------- . “The Paleo-Hebrew Leviticus Scroll from Qumran.” BA 50 (1987) 45-54. Mulder, M. J., ed. Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation o f the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum 2/1. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988. Owens, R. J. “Aphrahat as a Witness to the Early Syriac Text of Leviticus.” In ThePeshitta: Its Early Text and History. Papers read at thePeshitta Symposium held at Leiden 3 0 31 A ugust 1984. Ed. P. B. Dirksen and M. J. Mulder. Monographs of the Peshitta Institute Leiden 4. Leiden: Brill, 1988.1-48. Ploeg, J. P. M. van der. “Lév ix,23-x,2 dans un texte de Qumran.” In Bibel und Qumran: Beitrage zur Erforschung der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel u nd Qumranmssenschaft. Ed. S. Wagner. Berlin: Evangelische Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft zu Berlin, 1968. 153-55. Puech, E. “Notes en marge de llQPaléolévitique: Le fragment L, des fragments inédits et une jarre de la grotte 11 (Planches 1-111)3 R B 96 (1989) 161-83. Rapallo, U. Caichi Ebraici nelle Antiche Versioni del «Levitico» (Studio sui Settanta, la Vetus Latina e la Vulgata). Studi Semitici 39. Rome: Istituto di Studi del Vicion Oriente, Universitá di Roma, 1971. Τον, E. “The Textual Character of the Leviticus Scroll from Qumran Cave 11” (Heb.). Shnaton laM ikra 3 (1978/79) 238-44. Wevers, J. W. Leviticus. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate. Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986.----------- . Text History o f the Greek Leviticus. Mitteilungen des Septuaginta-Unternehmens 19. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. C ritical Stu d ies

For an extended bibliography on the Holiness Code, see Bibliography for chaps. 17-26. Allis, O. T. The Old Testament, Its Claims and Its Critics. Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972. Amsler, S. “Les documents de la loi et la formation du Pentateuque.” In Le Pentateuque en question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible ά la lumiére des recherches récentes. Ed. A. Pury. La Monde de la Bible. Geneve: Editions Labor et Fides, 1989. 235-57. Begrich, J. “Die priestliche Tora.” In Werden u n d Wesen des Alten Testaments. BZAW 66. Berlin: Alfred Tópelmann, 1936. 63-88. Blenkinsopp, J. “Structure of P.” CBQ 38 (1976) 275-92. Blum, E. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin: de

xxii

Main Bibliography

Gruyter, 1990. Brin, B. “Concerning Some of the Uses of the Bible in the Temple Scroll.” RevQ 12 (1987) 519-28. Cassuto, U. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition o f the Pentateuch. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. Childs, B. S. “Die theologische Bedeutung der Endform einesTextes. T Q 1 6 (1987) 242-51. Clines, D. The Theme o f the Pentateuch. JSOTSup 10. Sheffield: University of Sheffield, 1978. Cross, E M. ‘The Priestly Work.” In Canaanite M yth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History o f the Religion o f Israel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1973. 293-325. Dussaud, R. “Du Probléme Littéraire au Probléme Religieux.” HUCA 23 (1950/51) 60510‫ ־‬. Elliger, K. “Sinn and Ursprung der priesterlichen Geschichtserzáhlung.” Z T K 4 9 (1952) 121-43. Freedman, D. N. “Son of Man, Can These Bones Live?” In t 29 (1975) 171-86. Friedman, R. E. The Exile and Biblical Narrative: The Formation o f the Deuteronomistic and Pnestly Works. HSM 22. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Grelot, P. “La derniére étape de la rédaction sacerdotale.” VT6 (1956) 174-89. Grintz, J. M. ‘“ Do not eat on the blood’: Reconsiderations in Setting and Dating of the Priestly Code.” A S T I8 (1972) 78-105.----------- . “Archaic Terms in the Priestly Code” (Heb.). Leshonenu 39 (1974/75) 520, 163-81; 40 (1975/76) 5-32. Hals, R. M. “Is There a Genre of Preached Law?” SBLASP 1 (1973) 1-12. Haran, M. “Shiloh and Jerusalem: The Origin of the Priestly Tradition in the Pentateuch.” JB L 81 (1961) 156-65.----------- . ‘The Idea of Centralization of the Cult in the Priestly Apprehension.” Beer-Sheva 1 (1973) 114-21.----------- . “Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Sourc e .”JB L 100 (1981) 321-33.----------- . ‘The Character of the Priestly Source: Utopian and Exclusive Features.” In Eighth World Congress o f Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983. 131-38. Henry, M.-L. Jahw ist u n d Pnesterschrift: Zwei Glaubenszeugnisse des Alten Testaments. Arbeiten zur Theologie 3. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960. Hurvitz, A. “The Usage of ‫ שש‬and ‫ בוץ‬in the Bible and Its Implication for the Date of P.” H T R 60 (1967) 117-21.----------- . “Linguistic Observations on the Biblical Usage of the PriesdyTerm cEda (‫( ”)עדה‬Heb.). Tarbiz40 (1971/72) 261-76; Im manuel l (1972) 21-23.-----------. T h e Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code—A Linguistic Study in Technical Idioms and Terminology.” R B 81 (1974) 24-56.----------- . A Linguistic Study of the Relationship between the Pnestly Source and the Book o f Ezekiel: A New Approach to an Old Problem. Cahiers de la RB 20. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1982. ----------- . “The Language of the Priestly Source and Its Historical Setting—The Case for an Early Date.” In Proceedings o f the Eighth World Congress o f Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. 8394. Kapelrud, A. S. “The Date of the Priestly Code.” A S T I 8 (1964) 58-64. Kaufmann, Y. The Religion o f Israel: From Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile. Tr. M. Greenberg. New York: Schocken Books, 1956. Kilian, R. “Die Priesterschrift—Hoffnung auf Heimkehr.” In Wort un d Botschaft. Ed. J. Schreiner. Würzburg, 1967. 226-43. Kitchen, K. A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1966. Knierim, R. P. “The Composition of the

Pentateuch.” SBLASP 24 (1985) 393-415.----------- . “Criticism of Literary Features, Form, Tradition, and Redaction.” In The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Ed. D. Knight and G. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. 123-65. Knight, D. A. Rediscovenng the Traditions o f Israel: The Development o f the Traditio-HistoHcal Research o f the Old Testament, with Special Consideration o f Scandinavian Contnbutions. SBLDS 9. Missoula, MI: Scholars Press, 1975.----------- . “The Pentateuch.” In The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters. Ed. D. Knight and G. Tucker. Philadelphia: Fortress; Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985. 263-96. Koch, K. “Die Eigenart der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigesetzgebung. Z T K b b (1958) 36-51.----------- . Die Púesterschúft von Exodus 25 bis Leviticus 16: Eine uberlieferungsgeschichtliche und literarkritische Untersuchung. FRLANT 71. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,

1959.----------- . “P—kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung.” V T 37 (1987) 446-67. Kraus, H.-J. Geschichte der histoñsch-kútischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments. 2d ed. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969. Kuhl, C. “Die »Wiederaufnahme«—ein literarkritisches Prinzip?” Z A W 64 (1952) 1-11. Labuschagne, C. J. “The Pattern of the Divine Speech Formulas in the Pentateuch: The Key to Its Literary Structure.” VT 32 (1982) 268-96. Levine, B. A. “Comments on Some Technical Terms of the Biblical Cult” (Heb.). Leshonenu 30 (1965) 3-11.----------- . “Priestly Writers.” IDBSup 683-87.----------- .

M ain Bibliography

xxiii

‘To the Study of the Priestly Source: The Linguistic Aspect” (Heb.). Eretz Israel 16 (1982) 12431.----------- . “Late Language in the Priestly Source: Some Literary and Historical Observations.” In Proceedings o f the Eighth World Congress o f Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, [1983]. 69-82. Long, B. O. “Recent Field Studies in Oral Literature and Their Bearing on OT Criticism.” V T 26 (1976) 187-98. Lord, A. B. The Singer o f Tales. Harvard Studies in Comparative Literature 24. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1960. McBride, S. D., Jr. “The Role of Moses in Old Testament Traditions.” In t 44 (1990) 229-39. McEvenue, S. E. The Narrative Style o f the PHestly Water. AnBib 50. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971. Millard, A. R. “The Practice of Writing in Ancient Israel.” BA 35 (1972) 98-111. Muilenburg, J. “A Study of Hebrew Rhetoric: Repetition and Style.” VTSup 1 (1953) 1-18. Neusner, J. “Translating a Midrash-Compilation: Some New Considerations (Leviticus Rabbah).” H A R 7 (1983) 187-201. Nielsen, E. Oral Tradition: A Modern Problem in Old Testament Introduction. SBT 11. London: SCM Press, 1954.----------- . “Moses and the Law.” VT32 (1982) 87-98. Noth, M. A History o f Pentateuchal Traditions. Tr. and intro. B. Anderson. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Ploeg, J. van der. “Le role de la tradition órale dans la transmission du texte de ΓAnden Testament.” R B 54 (1947) 5-41. Polzin, R. Late Biblical Hebrew: Toward an Historical Typology o f Biblical Hebrew Prose. HSM 12. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976. Rad, G. von. The Problem o f the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Tr. E. Dicken. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. Rendtorff, R. Die Gesetze in der Priesterschrift. FRLANT 62. 2d ed. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963.----------- . “Traditio-Historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis.” In Proceeding o f the Fifth World Congress o f Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1969. 5—11.----------- . “Mose als Religionsstifter? Ein Beitrag zur Diskussion über die Anfange der israelitischen Religion.” In Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TBÜ 57. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1975. 152-71.----------- . Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. BZAW 147. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977 ( =The Problem o f the Process o f Transmission in the Penteteuch. Tr.J. Scullion. JSOTSup 89. Sheffield: JSOT, 1990).----------. The Old Testament: A n Introduction. Tr.J. Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Ringgren, H. O ral and Written Transmission in the Old Testament: Some Observations.” S T 3 (1949) 34-59. Saeb0, M. “Priestertheologie und Priesterschrift: Zur Eigenart der priesterlichen Schicht im Pentateuch.” VTSup 32 (1981) 357-74. Sanders, J. A. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. ----------- . Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Cñticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Sandmel, S. T h e Haggada within Scripture."JBL 80 (1961) 10522. Segal, Μ. H. ‘The Composition of the Pentateuch: A Fresh Examination.” Scripta HierosolymitanaS (1961) 68-114.----------- . “The Religion of Israel before Sinai.” JQ R 53 (1962/ 63) 226-56.-----------. The Pentateuch: Its Composition and Its Authorship and Other Biblical Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967. Speiser, E. A. “Leviticus and the Critics.” In Y. K aufm ann Jubilee Volume. Ed. M. Haran. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960. 29-45 (= Oriéntale and Biblical Studies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1967. 123-42). Thompson, R. J. Moses and the Law in a Century of Cñticism since Graf. VTSup 19. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Vaux, R. de. “A propos du second centenaire d’Astruc réflexions sur l’état actuel de la critique du Pentateuque.” VTSup 1 (1953) 182-98 ( = B ibket Orient Paris: Cerf, 1967. 41-57). Vink, J. G. “The Date and Origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament.” OTS 15 (1969) 1-144. Wagner, N. E. “Pentateuchal Criticism: No Clear Future.” CJT 13 (1967) 225-32. Weinfeld, M. ‘Julius Wellhausen’s Understanding of the Law of Ancient Israel and Its Fallacies” (Heb.). Shnaton la-Miqra 4 (1980) 81-87.----------- . “Social and Cultic Institutions in the Priestly Source against Their Ancient Near Eastern Background.” In Proceedings o f the Eighth World Congress offewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1983. 95-129. Whybray, R. N. The M aking o f the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study. JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. Winnett, F. The Mosaic Tradition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1949. Zevit, Z. “Converging Lines of Evidence Bearing on the Date of P.” Z A W 94 (1982) 481-510. Zimmerli, W. “Sinaibund und Abrahambund: Ein Beitrag zum Verstandnis der Priesterschrift.” TZ 16 (1960) 268-80 (= Gottes Offenbarung: Gesammelte Aufsdtze zum Alten Testament. TBÜ 19. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1969. 205-16).

XXIV

Main Bibliography

C ultural and H istorical Stu d ies

For more bibliography on sacrifice see Bibliography at chaps. 1-7, on the priesthood at chaps. 8—10, and on ritual purity at chaps. 11-15 and Excursus on clean and unclean. Albright, W. F. “Moses in Historical and Theological Perspective.” In M agnolia Dei: The Mighty Acts o f God. FS G. E. Wright. Ed F. Cross, W. Lemke, and P. Miller, Jr. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. 120-131. Amusin, J. D. “Die Gerim in der sozialen Legislatur des Alten Testaments.” Klio 63 (1981) 15-23. Anderson, G. A. Sacrifices and Offerings in Ancient Israel: Studies in Their Social and Political Importance. HSM 41. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Brichto, H. C. O n Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement.” H UCA 47 (1976) 19-55. Büchler, A. Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature o f the First Century. London: Oxford UP, 1928. Buss, M. “The Meaning of ‘Cult’ and the Interpretation of the OTT J B R 32 (1964) 317-25. Clements, R. E. God and Temple. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965. Coleman, J. E. Origins of the OT Sacrifice.” CBQ 2 (1940) 13-44. Cross, F. M. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge, MA: UP, 1973. Davis, D. “An Interpretation of Sacrifice in Leviticus.” Z A W 89 (1977) 387-99. Douglas, M. Purity and Danger. London: Routledge Sc Kegan Paul, 1966. Eberharter, A. “Das Horn im Kult des Alten Testament.” Z K T 51 (1927) 394-99. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Fretheim, T. E. “The Priestly Document: Anti-temple?” VT18 (1968) 313-29. Goodsir, R. “Animal Sacrifice—Delusion or Deliverance?” In Studia Bíblica 1 9 7 8 .1. Papers on Old Testament and Related Themes. Ed. E. Livingstone. Sixth International Congress on Biblical Studies, Oxford, 3-7 April 1978. JSOTSup 11. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1979. 157-60. Gottwald, N. K. The Tribes ofYahweh: A Sociology o f the Religion o f Liberated Israel 1 2 5 0 -1 0 5 0 B.C.E. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979. Gray, G. B. Sacrifice in the Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice. Oxford: Clarendon, 1925; repr., ed. Η. M. Orlinsky, New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1971. Gray, J. “Cultic Affinities between Israel and Ras Shamra.” Z A W 62 (1950) 207-20. Grayford, S. C. Sacrifice and Priesthood:fewish and Christian. 2nd ed. London: Methuen, 1953. Haran, M. “Priesthood, Temple, Divine Service: Some Observations on Institutions and Practices of Worship.” H A R 7 (1983) 121-35. -------------- . Temples and Temple-Service in Ancient Israel. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1985. Haupt, P. “Babylonian Elements in the Levitic Ritual.” JB L 19 (1900) 55-61. Herbert, A. S. Worship in Ancient Israel. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1959. Hermisson, H. J. Sprache u n d R itus im altisraelitischen Kult. WMANT 19. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965. Hurowitz, V. “The Priestly Account of Building the Tabernacle.” JA O S 105 (1985) 21-30. Janowski, B. Sühne als Heilsgeschehen: Studien zu r Sühnetheologie der Priesterschrift u n d zur Wurzel KPR im Alten Orient u n d im Alten Testament.

WMANT 55. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1982. Kaufmann, Y. The Religion o f Israel. Tr. and abridged M. Greenberg. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Kennett, R. H. A ncient Hebrew Social Life a nd Custom as Indicated in L aw N arrative a n d Metaphor. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1931. Munich: Kraus Reprint, 1980. Knauf, E. A. “Zur Herkunft und Sozialgeschicte Israels: ‘Das Bóckchen in der Milch seiner Mutter.” Bib 69 (1988) 153-69. Kraus, H.-J. Worship in Israel: A Cultic History o f the Old Testament. Tr. G. Buswell. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1965. Leach, E. R. Culture and Communication, The Logic by Which Symbols Are Connected: A n Introduction to the Use o f Structuralist Analysis in Social A nthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1976. Levine, B. A. In the Presence o f the Lord. SJLA 5. Leiden: Brill, 1974. Milgrom, J. Studies in Cultic Terminology and Theology. SJLA 36. Leiden: Brill, 1983.----------- . “Day of Atonement.” E ncfud 5:1384-87.----------- . ‘Kipper.’ E ncfud 10:1039-44.----------- . Cult and Conscience. SJLA 18. Leiden: Brill, 1976.----------- . Studies in Cultic Theology and Terminology. SJLA 36. Leiden: Brill, 1983. Neufeld, E. “The Socio-economic Background to Yobel and S em itta .” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 33 (1958) 53-124. Neusner, J. The Idea o f Purity in AncientJudaism. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Obbink, H. “The Horns

of the Altar in the Semitic World, Especially in Jahwism.”/21L 56 (1937) 45-49. Pedersen, J. Israel Its Life and Culture I-TV. Copenhagen: Branner OG Korch; London: Geoffrey

M ain Bibliography

XXV

Cumberlege, Oxford UP, 1964. Rendtorff, R. Studien zur Geschicte des Opfers im Alten Israel. WMANT 24. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967.----------- . “Der Kultus im Alten Israel.”JahrbuchfürLiturgikundHymnologie 2 (1956) 1-21 (= Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TBÜ 57. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1975. 89-109). Rigby, P. “A Structural Analysis of Israelite Sacrifice and Its Other Institutions.” Église et Théologie 11 (1980) 299-351. Ringgren, H. Israelite Religion. Tr. D. Green. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968. Riviée, J. “Satisfactio Vicaria.” R S R 2 6 (1952) 221-57. Rodriguez, A. M. Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus. Andrews University Doctoral Dissertation Series 3. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UP, 1979. Rowley, Η. H. “The Meaning of Sacrifice in the OT.” BJRL 33 (1950) 74-110.----------- . “The Religious Values of Sacrifice.” ExpTim 58 (1946/48) 69-71.----------- . Worship in Ancient Israel: Its Forms and Meaning. London: SPCK, 1978. Schaeffer, H. The Social Legislation o f the Primitive Semites. New Haven: Yale UP, 1915. Smith, W. R. The Religion o f the Semites: The Fundamental Institutions. New York: Schocken, 1972. Snaith, N. H. “Sacrifices in the OT.” VT15 (1965) 73-80. Thompson, R. J. Penitence and Sacrifice in Early Israel outside the Levitical Law. Leiden: Brill, 1963. Turner, V. W. The R itual Process. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969. Vaux, R. de. Studies in O T Saarifice. Cardiff: University of Wales, 1964.----------- . Ancient Israel. 2 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Wellhausen, J. Prolegomena to the History o f Israel. Preface by W. Smith. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973. Wolff, H. W. Anthropology o f the Old Testament. Tr. M. Kohl. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Yerkes, R. K. Saarifice in Greek and Rom an Religion and Early Judiaism. New York: Scribner, 1952. Stu d ies in A n c ien t I sraelite L aw

Alt, A. “The Origins of Israelite Law.” In Essays on Old Testament History and Religion. Tr. R. Wilson. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968.101-71. Auerbach, E. “Das Zehngebot—Allgemeine Gesetzes-Form in der Bibel.” VT16 (1966) 255-76. Begrich, J. “Die priesterliche Tora.” In Warden und Wesen des Alten Testaments. Ed. P. Volz. BZAW 66. Berlin: Topelmann, 1936. 6388 (= Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. TBÜ 21. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1964. 232-60). Boecker, H. J. Redeformen des Rechtslebens im Alten Testament. WMANT 14. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1970.----------- . Law and the Administration o f Justice in the Old Testament and the Ancient East. Tr. J. Moiser. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1980. Brauner, R. A. “Some Aspects of Offense and Penalty in the Bible and the Literature of the Ancient Near East.” Gratz College A n n u a l o f Jewish Studies 3 (1974) 9-18. Buss, M. “The Distinction between Civil and Criminal Law in Ancient Israel.” In Proceedings o f the Sixth World Congress ofJewish Studies I. Jerusalem: Academic Press, 1977. 51-62.----------- . “Logic and Israelite Law.” In T hinking Biblical Law. Ed. D. Patrick. Semeia 45 (1989) 49-65. Cazelles, H. “Le sens religieus de la loi.” In PopulusDei I. Ed. H. Cazelles et al. Communio 10. Rome: L. A. S., 1969. 177-200. Clark, W. “Law.” In Old Testament Form Criticism. Ed. J. Hayes. San Antonio: Trinity UP, 1974. 99139. Daube, D. Studies in Biblical Law. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1947; New York: KTAV, 1969. Dion, P.‫־‬E. “Une inscription araméenne en style a w ilu m sa et quelques textes bibliques datant de l’exil.” Bib 55 (1974) 399-403. Ercole, G. “The Juridical Structure of Israel from the Time of Her Origin to the Period of Hadrian.” In Populus Dei I. Ed. H. Cazelles et al. Communio 10. Rome: L. A. S., 1969. 389-461. Falk, Z. W. Hebrew Law in Biblical Times. Jerusalem: Wahrmann Books, 1974. Feldman, E. Biblical & Post-Biblical Defilement: Law as Theology. New York: KTAV, 1977. Fensham, F. C. “The Possibility of the Presence of Casuistic Legal Material at the Making of the Covenant at Sinai.” PEQ 93 (1961) 143-46. Finkelstein, J. J. “The Goring Ox: Some Historical Perspectives on Deodards, Forfeitures, Wrongful Death and Western Notion of Sovereignty.” Temple Law Quarterly 46 (1973) 169-290. Fohrer, G. “Das sogenannte apodiktisch formulierte Recht und der Dekalog.” K D 11 (1965) 49-74 (= Studien zur alttestamentlichen Theologie u n d Geschichte [1 9 4 9 1966]. BZAW 115. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. 120-48). Frymer-Kensky, T. “Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible.” In T hinking Biblical Law. Ed. D. Patrick. Semeia 45 (1989) 89-102. Gemser, B. “The Importance of the Motive Clause in Old Testament Law.”

XXVI

Main Bibliography

VTSup 1 (1953) 50-66 (= Adhuc Loquitur. POS 7. Leiden: Brill, 1958. 96-115). Gerstenberger, E. S. Wesen u n d H erkunft des »apodiktischen Rechts«. WMANT 20. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1965. Gese, H. “Beobachtungen zum Stil alttestamentliche Rechtsatze.” T L Z 85 (1960) 147-50. Gilmer, H. W. The If-You Form in Israelite Lam SBLDS 15. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Gnuse, R. You Shall N ot Steal: Community and Property in the Biblical Tradition. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1985. Good, E. M. “Capital Punishment and Its Alternatives in Ancient Near Eastern Law.” Stanford Law Review 19 (1967) 947-77. Gowen, D. E. “Reflections on the Motive Clauses in Old Testament Law.” In Intergerini Parietis Septum (Eph. 2:14). FS M. Barth. Ed. D. Hadidian. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 33. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1981. 111-28. Greenberg, M. “Some Postulates of Biblical Criminal Law.” In Y. K aufm ann Jubilee Volume. Ed. M. Haran. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960. 5-28. ----------- . The Jewish Experience. Ed. J. Goldin. Repr. New York: Bantam Books, 1970. 18-37.----------- . “More Reflections on Biblical Criminal Law.” In Scripta Hierosolymitana 31: Studies in Bible. Ed. S. Japhet. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1986. 1-17. Haas, P. “‘Die He Shall Surely Die’: The Structure of Homicide in Biblical Law.” In T hinking Biblical Law. Ed. D. Patrick. Semeia 45 (1989) 67-87. Haran, M. “Seething a Kid in its Mother’s Milk.”JJS 30 (1979) 23-35. Hayes, J. H. “Restitution, Forgiveness, and the Victim in Old Testament Law.” Trinity University Studies in Religion 11 (1982) 1-23. Hentschke, R. Satzung u n d Setzender: E in Beitrag zur israelitischen Rechtssterminologie. BWANT 83. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1963. Hermann, S. “Das apodiktische Recht.” M IO 15 (1969) 249-61. Hoebel, E. A. The L aw o f Primitive M an: A Study in Comparative Legal Dynamics. New York: Atheneum, 1983. Horton, F. L., Jr. “A Reassessment of the Legal Forms in the Pentateuch and Their Functions.” SBLASP 2 (1979) 347-96. Jackson, B. S. Theft in Early Jewish Lam Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.----------- . Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Japhet, S. “The Relationship between the Legal Corpora in the Pentateuch in Light of Manumission Laws.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986) 63-89. Jirku, A. Das weltliche Recht im Alten Testament. Gütersloh: Bortelsmann, 1927. Kilian, R. “Apodiktisches und kasuistisches Recht im Licht ágyptischer Analogien.” B Z 7 (1963) 185-202. Knierim, R. P. “The Problem of Ancient Israel’s Prescriptive Legal Traditions.” In Thinking Biblical Law. Ed. D. Patrick. Semeia 45 (1989) 7-25. Kohler, L. “Justice in the Gate.” In Hebrew M an. Nashville: Abingdon, 1956. Liedke, G. Gestalt u n d Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssatze. WMANT 39. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1971. Martin-Achard, R. “Breves remarques sur la signification théologique de la loi selon L’Anden Testament.” E T R 57 (1982) 343-59. Mendenhall, G. Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Pittsburgh: Biblical Colloquium, 1955.----------- . “Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law.” BA 17 (1954) 26-46.----------- . “Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition.” BA 17 (1954) 50-76 ( = The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 3. Ed. E. Campbell and D. Freedman. Garden City: Doubleday, 1970. 3-53). Milgrom, J. “The Legal Terms slm and brisw in the Bible.”JN E S 35 (1976) 271-73. Nielsen, E. “Moses and the Law.” FT32 (1982) 87-98. Noth, M. “The Laws in the Pentateuch: Their Assumptions and Meaning.” In Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies. Tr. D. R. Αρ-Thomas. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1966. 1-107. Patrick, D. Old Testament Law: A n Introduction. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.----------- . “Studying Biblical Law as Humanities.” In T hinking Biblical Law. Ed. D. Patrick. Semeia 45 (1989) 27-47. Paul, S. Studies in the Book o f the Covenant in the Light o f Cuneiform and Biblical Law. VTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Phillips, A. Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue. New York: Schocken, 1970.----------- . “Types of Formulation in Biblical and Mesopotamian Law” (Heb.). Leshonenu 34 (1970) 257-66. Ploeg, J. van der. “Studies in Hebrew Law: I. The Terms.” C BQ 12 (1950) 248-59; “II. The Style of the Laws.” CBQ 12 (1950) 416-27; “III. Systematic Analysis of the Contents of the Collections of Laws in the Pentateuch.” C B Q 13 (1951) 28-43; “IV. The Religious Character of the Legislation.” CBQ 13 (1951) 164—71; ‘V. Varia: Conclusions.” CBQ13 (1951) 296307. Rabast, K. Das apodiktische Recht im Deuteronomium u n d im Heiligkeitsgesetz. Berlin: Heimatdienstverlag, 1949. Rapaport, I. “The Origins of Hebrew Law.” P EQ 73 (1941) 15867. Rendtorff, R. Die Gesetze in der Preisterschrift. FRLANT 62 Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8c

M ain Bibliography

XX v i i

Ruprecht, 1963. Schottroff, W. Der altisraelitische Fluchspruch. WMANT 30. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1969. Schultz, H. Das Todesrecht im A lten Testament: Studien zu r Rechtsform derMot-Jumat-Satze. BZAW114. Berlin: Tópelmann, 1969. Wagner, V. Rechtssatze in gebundener Sprache un d Rechtsatzreihen im israelitischen Recht. BZAW 127. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1972. Welch, J. W. A Biblical Law Bibliography: Sorted by Subjects and by Authors. Provo, UT: J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, 1989. Westbrook, R. Property and the Family in Biblical Law. JSOTSup 113. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. T h eo lo g ic a l Stu d ies

Brichto, H. C. “On Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement.” HUCA 47 (1976) 1955. Brueggemann, W. “The Kerygma of the Priestly Writers.” Z A W 84 (1972) 397-414. Childs, B. S. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Clements, R. E. Old Testament Theology: A Fresh Approach. Marshalls Theological Library. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1978. Crawford, R. G. “Is the Penal Theory of the Atonement Scriptural?” SJT 23 (1970) 257-72. Davidson, A. B. The Theology o f the Old Testament. Ed. S. Salmond. International Theological Library. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1961. Eichrodt, W. Theology o f the Old Testament. Tr. J. Baker. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961. Feldman, E. Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and M ourning: Law as Theology. New York: KTAV, 1977. Firmage, E. “The Biblical Dietary Laws and the Concept of Holiness.” In Studies in the Pentateuch. Ed. J. Emerton. VTSup 41. Leiden: Brill, 1990. 177-208. Fuhs, H. F. “Heiliges Volk Gottes.” In Unterwegs zu r Kirche: Alttesstamentliche Konzeptionen. Ed. J. Schreiner. Quaestiones Disputatae 110. Freiburg: Herder, 1987. 143-67. Gammie, J. Holiness in Israel. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Gese, H. Essays on Biblical Theology. Tr. K. Crim. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1981. Henrix, Η. H. “Von der Nachahmung Gottes: Heiligkeit und Heiligsein im biblischen undjüdischen Denken.” E rbA uf65 (1989) 177-87. Henry, M.-L. Jahwist u n d Priesterschrift: Zwei Glaubenszeugnisse des Alten Testaments. Arbeiten zur Theologie 3. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1960. Hodgson, R. “1 Thess 4:1-12 and the Holiness Tradition (HT).” SBLASP 21 (1982) 199-215. Imschoot, P. van. Theology o f the Old Testament. I. God. Tr. K. Sullivan and F. Buck. New York: Desclée , 1954. Jacob, E. Theology o f the Old Testament. Tr. A. Heathcote and P. Allcock. New York: Harper & Row, 1958. Keller, J. “Theological Linguistics: A Suggestion.”JRelS 12 (1985) 46-55. Klein, R. W. “The Message of P.” Die Botschaft und die Boten. FS H. W. Wolff. Ed. J. Jeremías and L. Perlitt. NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1981. 57-66. Knierim, R. P. Die Hauptbegriffe fü r Sünde im Alten Testament. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1 9 6 5 .----------- . “The Problem of an Old Testament Hamartiology.” Review of S. Porúbcan’s Sin in the Old Testament. V T 16 (1966) 366-85. Lyonnet, S. Sin, Redemption, and Sacrifice: A Biblical and Patristic Study. AnBib 48. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1970. McCarthy, D. J. Treaty and Covenant. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963. Milgrom, J. “Ethics and Ritual: The Foundations of the Biblical Dietary Laws.” In Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives. Ed. E. Firmage, B. Weiss, andj. Welch. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.159-98. Monty, V. “La nature du peché d’aprés le vocabulaire hébreu.” ScEc 1 (1948) 95-108. Otto, R. The Idea o f the Holy: A n Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea o f the D ivine and Its Relation to the Rational. Tr. J. Harvey. London: Oxford UP, 1967. Paul, S. M. Studies in the Book o f the Covenant in the Light o f Cuneiform and Biblical Law. VTSup 18. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Perlitt, L. Bundestheologie im Alten Testament. WMANT 36. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969. Porúbcan, S. Sin in the Old Testament: A Soteriological Study. Aloisiana 3. Rome: Herder, 1963. Rad, G. von. “Die Theologie der Priesterschrift.” In Die Priesterschrift in Hexateuch. BWANT 65. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1934.166-89 (= Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II. Ed. R. Smend. TBü 48. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1973.165-88).----------- . ‘The Promised Land and Yahweh’s Land in the Hexateuch.” In The Problem o f the Hexateuch and Other Essays. Tr. E. Dicken. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966. 77-93.----------- . Old Testament Theology. Tr. D. M. G. Stalker. Vol. 1. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Roach, C. C. “Book of Leviticus.” In t 4 (1950) 458-69. Sabourin,

xxviii

Main Bibliography

L. Redemption Sacrificielle: Une Enquete Exégétique. Montreal: Desclée de Brower, 1961. Schenker, A. Versóhnung u n d Sühne: Wege gewaltfreier Konfliktlósung im Alten Testament: M it einem Ausblick a u f N eue Testam ent BibB 15. Freiburg: Schweizerisches Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981. Temen, S. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. Religious Perspectives 26. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978. Toorn, K. van der. Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia: A Comparative Study. Assen/Maastricht: Van Gorcum, 1985. Vriezen, Th. C. A n Outline o f Old Testament Theology. Newton Centre, MA: Branford, 1966. Wyatt, N. “Atonement Theology in Ugarit and Israel.” UF 8 (1976) 415-30. Zimmerli, W. “Ich bin Yahweh.” In Geschichte u n d Altes Testament. BHT 16. FS A. Alt. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebech), 1953. 179-209.----------- . “I Am Yahweh.” In I A m Yahweh. Tr. D. Stott. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. 1-28.----------- . Old Testament Theology in Outline. Tr. D. Green. Atlanta: John Knox, 1978.----------- . “‘Heiligkeit’ nach dem sogenannten Heiligkeitsgesetz.” VT30 (1980) 493512. Zink, J. K. “Uncleanness and Sin.” VT17 (1967) 354-61.

Introduction

The Hebrew Text of Leviticus T he M asoretic Text o f Leviticus is a highly reliable text. As a p a rt o f the Pentateuch, the first p art of the Hebrew Scriptures to be accepted as authoritafive, it has been carefully copied from an early period. T he longest and oldest Hebrew text o f Leviticus is llQ paleoL ev, which contains portions o f Lev 22-27. It is a leather ms of Leviticus written in paleo-Hebrew script. It is dated to around 100 B.C. Mathews (BA 50 [1987] 50) points out that its use o f the paleo-Hebrew script along with some o th er features indicates th at it was p roduced by a scribe who shared the interests o f the Essenes. The best preserved portion is seven continuous colum ns, one being blank, that contain portions. Because in llQ paleoL ev there are fifteen unique readings that are inferior to MT, Mathews concludes th at llQ p aleo L ev is n o t a superior witness to Leviticus (CBQ 48 [1986] 196-97). O th er mss of Leviticus am ong the Dead Sea Scrolls, including nine in Hebrew, a couple in Greek, and one Targum, have survived only in small fragm ents. T he versions for the m ost p art support the MT. T he m ost im portant are the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX. Wevers has produced both a fine critical edition of the Greek text of Leviticus and a thorough analysis of that text. In Text History (72) he points out that establishing the best Greek text for Leviticus is complicated by two factors: (1) T here are only a few tiny fragm ents of pre-Vaticanus Greek texts; this scarcity is com pounded because A and B often represent a tradition that has lim ited support against “an overwhelm ing popular tradition” and that is dem onstratively secondary. (2) The o ther com plicating factor is that the LXX translator did n o t follow a consistent p attern of translation. In Wever’s ju d g m en t he varied the translation for variation’s sake. For example, “two” is ren d ered δύο, “two,” in 3:4, άμφοτέρους, “b o th ,” in 3:10, and ζβνγος, “pair,” in 5:11. MT, however, has escaped m uch o f the editorial activity that Sam and LXX experienced, implying that its textual tradition reaches behind theirs (W enham, 15). N um bered am ong the o th er versions are the Peshitta in Syriac, the Targums in Aramaic, and the Vulgate in Latin. Lane ( VT39 [1989] 468-79) apportions the Syriac mss into three groups: “N estorian” or “Mosul,” consisting of thirty-four mss; Takrit, nam ed after a city on the Tigris, consisting of six mss from Wadi N atrun in Egypt; the W estern group, which comes from a ms that is identified with the Jacobite m onastic territory nam ed T ur cabdin (470-71). H e also claims th at the translator (s) o f the Syriac text have ren d ered the Hebrew very skillfully both in the term s chosen and in the word order. E.g., ‫ג ר‬, “sojourner,” is translated by a phrase, “those who tu rn themselves to m e and dwell am ong you.” Lane (477) conjectures th at the translator(s) used a phrase to exclude a connotation carried by ‫ ר‬1‫ ג‬in Syr. F urtherm ore, this translation gives evidence that it was familiar with the discussions of the meanings of terms current in the rabbinic traditions o f that day (478). As a result, this version has a m ore precise and systematic text than does the MT text.

XXX

Introduction

T here is n o t m uch diversity then am ong the texts of Leviticus. Both the few significant variations and m any m inor ones are cited in the Notes. Mathews ( CBQ 48 [1986] 198-99) contends that the legal nature of the texts accounts for their consistency; their use in the com m unity required that they be standardized.

The Structure of Leviticus T he Hebrew nam e for the third book of the P entateuch comes from an ancient custom o f calling a book by its first word ‫ ויקרא‬wayyiqra3, “and he called.” Its nam e in the LXX is AevtTLKOv o r Aeveirucov, a substantive for “T he Levitical Book.” T he Vulgate ren d ered this G reek nam e into Latin as Liber Leviticus. Obviously the English nam e for this book comes via the Vulgate. The nam e used by the versions intim ates that the m aterial concerns the Levitical priesthood. Amazingly the term “Levite” appears only in 25:32-34, and in that reference solely in regard to the ownership of land and houses. T he concern of this book, however, is p u re worship and holy living led by the priests, the sons of Aaron. T he central position o f this book in the P entateuch attests to the significance of this subject for Israel’s raison d'etre. T he m aterial contained in Leviticus has its setting in a larger block o f m aterial on priestly m atters that runs from Exod 25:1 to N um 10:10. Nevertheless, a heading and two sum m ary statem ents (26:46; 27:34) dem arcate Leviticus as a book in itself. T he book opens with a com plex introduction at 1:1-2. This heading does double duty: it introduces both the first speech (1:3-3:17) and the book as a whole. It makes a direct tie with the last chapter of Exodus, which reports that Moses finished setting up the tabernacle and that Yahweh’s glory descended upon it. Now from this Tent of M eeting Yahweh addresses Moses with the regulations, instructions, and laws fof worship at the new sanctuary. A sum m ary statem ent at 26:46 likewise does double duty, concluding both the laws on holy living and the entire book. With the addition of chap. 27, an o th er sum m ary statem ent at v 34, though less detailed than that at 26:46, now marks the end of the book. Leviticus is m ade up mostly of Yahweh speeches that Moses delivers to the congregation. These are usually headed by the statem ent that Yahweh spoke to Moses and com m anded him to speak to an o th er group. T he introductory formula usually is expressed (‫ ואמרת )לאמר‬. . . ‫ ד ב ר אל‬:‫ ויד בר יהוה אל־מ׳שה לאמר‬, ‘Yahweh spoke to Moses: Speak to . . . and say. . . ” (4:l-2aa; 5:20[6:1]; 6:17-18aa[24—25aa]; 7:22-23a; 12:l-2aa; I7 :l-2 a; 18:l-2a; 19:l-2aa; 20:l-2aa; 2 1 :la -b a [‫ויאמר‬, “and he said”], 16-17a; 2 2 : l 2 ‫ ־‬aa, 17-I8a; 2 3 :l-2 a, 9-10aa, 23-24a, 33-34a; 2 4 :l-2 aa; 25:l-2 aa; 2 7 :l-2 aa ). T here are now and then slight variations to this form ula; e.g., two com m ission form ulae use ‫ צו‬, “co m m an d ,” in place o f ‫ ד ב ר‬, “speak” (6:2a “scapegoat.” Levine (102) suggests that this term may have developed from ‫עז״אל‬, “a mighty goat,” with the duplication of ‫ז‬,‫ עזאזל > עזזאל‬. Keil and Delitzsch (398) understand it as an intense form of ‫( עזאזל > עזלזל > עזל‬with the liquid softening to a vowel; cf. GKC §30n). In b. Yoma 67b or 39a,‫ עזאזל‬is rendered “a fierce, difficult land,”since ‫ עזז‬is taken to mean “strong, fierce” (Levine, 102). Hoffmann (1:444), however, identifies it as a Heb. term meaning “complete destruction.” Working with the idea that this may be the name of another deity, Wyatt (429) proposes, on the basis that the original form was ‫עזזאל‬, that this term is a tide of cA!tar, a deity known from Ugarit who was the morning star and the son of Asherah. He makes this connection on the basis of the two goats required for sacrifice on this day as being identified with the twin hypostases ofcAltar. This speculafive suggestion has not found much support. 9. a. MT ‫ועשהו‬, “and he made it,” is elliptical for “he performed the ritual o f . . .”; cf. 9:16 and Exod 29:38. 10. a. Cf. n. 8.a. lO.b. For MT ‫יעמד‬, “it is to be stood, presented,” LXX has σ τ ή σ ε ι α υ τ ό ν = ‫יעמיד אתו‬, “he is to set it.” 10. c. LXX adds ά φ ή σ ει α υ τό ν, “he will release it.” 11. a. For MT ‫אשר לו‬, “which is his,”LXXBAreads τ ο ν α υ τ ό ν και τ ο υ οϊκ ου α υ τ ο ύ μ ό ν ο ν , “which is his and his house’s alone.” LXX stresses that the high priest makes the first sacrifice for not only himself, but also for his house, i.e., the active priests. 12. a. On ‫המחתה‬, cf. 10:1 12.b. On ‫סמים‬, cf. n. 4:7.a. 12.c. Cf. n. 2.c. 14.a. This is a partitive use of the prep ‫ מן‬to designate an indefinite portion of something (BDB, 3 ,‫ מך‬.b.,” 580). 14.b. This is an acc of manner, describing the way an action is to be done (GKC §118m; IB H S §10.2.2e). 14.c. ‫ולפני הכפרת‬, “and before the Atonement Slate,” stands before the verb for emphasis; in order to stress that there are two blood rites that take place in reference to the Atonement Slate, the speaker puts the references to this slate back to back with only “eastward” between them. In fact, the words ‫ מן־הדם‬. . . ‫ לפני הכפרת יזה‬. . . ‫ על־פני הכפרת‬. . . ‫ הזה‬. . . ‫מדם‬, “from the blood . . . he

Notes

223

is to sprinkle . . . before the Atonement Slate . . . before the Atonement Slate he is to sprinkle . . . some of the blood,” stand in a chiastic relationship: a:b:c::c:b:a. 15.a. LXX adds έ ν α ν τ ι κυρίου, “before the Lord.” 15.b. In place of MT’s ‫את־דמו‬, “its blood,” LXXBaAreads ά π ό τ ο υ α ίμ α τος· αύ τοϋ , “some of its blood,” as in v 14; cf. n. 8:15.a. 15. c. After ‫עשה‬,“do, make,”‫ את‬is a prep, not the sign of the dir obj (Bertholet, 55). 16. a. On this use of ‫מן‬, cf. n. 4:26.b. 17. a. ‫לא־יהיה‬, “it will not be,” is a strong negative (Baentsch, 385). 17. b. LXX adds υιών, “children of,”before Israel. 18. a. Cf. n. 14.a. 19. a. Cf. n. 14.a. 19. b. Cf. n. 14.b. 20. a. LXX adds καί π ερ ί τω ν Ιερέω ν κ α θα ρ ιει, “and he makes purification for the priests.”

21. a. LXX does not read ‫שתי‬, “two.” 21.b. ‫ הטאתם‬in BHS is a spelling error for ‫חטאתם‬. 21.c. LXX has τ ο υ ζώ ντο ς , “living,” as is used with “goat” earlier in this verse; this is an example of the leveling of the text. 21. d. ‫עתי‬, “timely, ready” (BDB, 774), only here in OT. 22. a. LXX does not read ‫כל‬, “all.” 24.a. Cf. n. 9.a. 24.b. LXX adds καί π ερ ί το υ ο ίκ ου α ύ τ ο ϋ = ‫ובעד ביתו‬, “and for his house.” 24. c. LXX adds ώ ς π ερ ί τω ν ιερ έω ν, “as for the priests.” 25. a. On ‫המזבחה‬, cf. n. 4:19.a. 26. a. LXX reads τ ο ν δ ιε σ τ α λ μ έ ν ο ν ε ι ς ά φ ε σ ιν , “the one set apart for forgiveness.” 27. a. In a pass construction the dir obj becomes the subj, but in Heb. this is an example where the obj of the action is still kept in the acc with a pass verb (GKC §121b).

27.b. LXX does not translate the pronominal suffix on □‫ ד‬, “blood.” 27.c. The long dir obj stands before the verb for emphasis as is frequently the case in chaps. 1-7; cf. n. 27.d. 27.d. LXX and Syr read a pi verb; so Baentsch (386). The pi is preferable, since this verb and the one following function as virtual pass (cf. GKC §144f). 27.e. Sam reads a sg verb (also Elliger, 201); cf. n. 27.c. 29.a. LXX adds τ ο ύ τ ο , “this”; for the sake of sense this Eng trans. follows the LXX, which may mean the LXX is the translator’s desire to provide an intelligible Gk. reading rather than evidence for a different Heb. Vorlage. 29.b. T h e op en in g , ‫ו הי ת ה‬, “and it is to b e ,” designates what is to com e; it d oes n o t p oin t back to the p reced in g proced u re (H offm ann, 1:462).

29.c. ‫ ענה‬means “humble, afflict, weaken.”A person is to humble himself or constrain himself by denying himself food and other dailyjoys. Such self-denial accords with the solemn, mournful attitude of repentance. ‫ ענה נפש‬occurs in Isa 58:3, where it stand parallel to □‫צו‬, “to fast.”This passage indicates that ‫ ענה נפש‬is a strict fast, i.e., no food or water and the wearing of sackcloth and ashes (cf. Ps 35:13). 31.a. Sam and Tg. Ps.-J. read ‫ הוא‬in p lace o f MT ‫ ; הי א‬also 23:32.

31. b. Also 23:32; this phrase is used for the Sabbath in 23:3; Exod 31:15; 35:2 (cf. 16:23) and for the sabbatical year in 25:4. 32. a. For MT ‫ימשח‬, “he anoints,” LXX reads a pi verb, while Syr and Vg have the verb in the pass; for sense in Eng, the rendering of the versions is followed. 32.b. LXX reads a pi verb; cf. n. 32.a. 32. c. For MT ‫וכפר‬, “and he is to make expiation” (cf. v 33), Sam and LXX read ‫יכפר‬, “he is to make expiation.”This is an example of the common error of the interchange of a w aw and a yod. The series of sentences beginning with w aw pfs favors MT. 33. a. This verse begins with ‫וכפר‬, “and he makes expiation”; both the first stich and the verse end with ‫ יכפר‬in order to emphasize the action of “expiation”; the threefold use of this root also underscores this action. 33.b. This is the only occurrence of the constr chain ‫מקדש הקדש‬, “the holy sanctuary.” Hoffmann (1:463) takes ‫ מקלש‬as a construct of ‫מקדש‬, “the holy place,” not ‫מקדש‬, “sanctuary” (cf. Num 18:29). Hoffmann is followed and the phrase is taken to mean the most important part of the sanctuary. 33.c. A few Heb. mss and Sam do not have a w a w on the prep ‫על‬, “on, for.” 33.d. The phrase ‫ ע□ קהל‬occurs only here in MT; the phrase ‫קהל״העם‬, “the assembly of the people,” occurs in Judg 20:2; Jer 26:17; Ps 109:32.

224

Leviticus 16:1-34

34.a. Cf. n. 16.a. 34.b. The cardinal number is used adverbially (Joüon §102f). 34.c. LXX renders the verb as a pass; Syr has a pi verb, suggesting a virtual pass. But if this sentence is part of a historical report of the first observance of the Day of Atonement, the antecedent for the pronoun is Aaron. MT is followed as the harder reading. Form/Structure/Setting

T he position o f this speech as the keystone of the P entateuch highlights the climax o f the sacrificial system on this high, solem n day. T he goal of the Day of A tonem ent is to expiate the priests’ and the p eo p le’s sins and to cleanse the sanctuary so th at the people may be in fellowship with God and continue to have access to him at the altar, which has been cleansed to keep it operational. T he structure o f this chapter is as follows: I.

Introduction (vv l-2a a) A. First introductory formula with reference to death of Aaron’s sons (v 1) B. Second introductory formula (v 2aa) II. Speech (vv 2a/3-34a) A. Commission to speak (v 2a/3) B. Speech proper (vv 2ay-34a) 1. Warning (v 2ay-b) 2. Regulations for the Day of Atonement (vv 3-28) a. Instructions of preparation and liturgical agenda (vv 3-10) 1) Instructions of preparation (vv 3-5) a) Preparation required of the high priest (vv 3-4) (1) Offerings required of the high priest (v 3) (2) Clothing for the high priest and his ritual bathing (v 4) b) Offerings required of the congregation (v 5) 2) Liturgical agenda (vv 6-10) a) High priest’s purification offering (v 6) b) The two goats from the congregation (vv 7-10) (1) Determining the destiny of the two goats (vv 7-8) (2) Liturgy with each goat (vv 9-10) (a) A purification offering (v 9) (b) Liturgy with the goat for Azazel (v 10) b. Ritual of the Day of Atonement (vv 11-28) 1) Rituals with the purification offerings (vv 11-19) a) Presentation of the high priest’s purification offering (vv 11-14) (1) Presentation and slaughter of the bull (v 11) (2) Rituals in the Holy of Holies (vv 12-14) (a) Ritual with the incense (vv 12-13) (b) Ritual of sprinkling blood on the Atonement Slate (v 14) b) Presentation of the congregation’s purification offering (vv 15-16) c) A prohibition against anyone’s being present in the Holy Place and a summary statement (v 17) d) Rites at the altar with blood from both purification offerings (vv 18-19) 2) Ritual with the goat for Azazel (vv 20-22) a) Confession of all sins over the goat (vv 20-2lba) b) Release of the goat to the wilderness (vv 21b/3-22)

Form/Structure/Setting

225

3) Ritual with the whole offerings (vv 23-25) a) Instructions for the high priest to change his garments (vv 23-24a) b) Sacrifice of the whole offerings (vv 24b-25) 4) Instructions in relationship to matters that take place outside the camp (vv 26-28) a) Procedure for readmittance of the one who releases the goat for Azazel (v 26) b) The disposal of the residue of the purification offering and procedure for readmittance of the one who makes the disposal (vv 27-28) 3. Calendrical instructions (vv 29-34a) a. Decrees (vv 29-33) 1) Definition of this day as a solemn day of self-affliction (vv 29-31) 2) The extent of expiation achieved (vv 32-33) b. Nummary statement (v 34a) III. Compliahce Report (v 34b) At the outset o f this discussion it needs to be n o ted that this speech is for the instruction of the congregation; it is n o t the liturgical regulation from the priestly professional knowledge. While it is headed by the commission of Moses to speak to Aaron (v 2a/3), this heading does n o t necessarily m ean that the speech contains the full text o f the high priest’s liturgical directions for the ritual of the Day of A tonem ent. R ather this heading gives an authoritative basis to this regulation, and it initiates the high priest’s central role in this liturgy. T he m ajor reason for ju d g in g this speech to be for the instruction of the laity is the skeleton nature of the inform ation provided. Details essential for the high priest to carry out the various rituals are missing. T he details contained herein are sufficient to inform the laity o f the various rites p erform ed on this day, bu t they are far from sufficient for the high priest to follow. For example, Aaron was to en ter into the Holy Place carrying a censer, incense, and blood from his own sacrifice (vv 12-14). How one person would have been able to carry all o f these items is n o t described; w hether the high priest had to go in and out o f the Holy Place twice at this time to fulfill these directions is no t stated. It is, furtherm ore, forcefully debated w hether the altar in vv 18-19 was the altar of the whole offering or the incense altar in the Holy Place (4:7, 18); this would have been an intolerable uncertainty for the high priest. A th ird exam ple com es in v v 23-24. They prescribe th at A aron bathe him self and th en change his clothes, yet no directions are given regarding where and how this bathing was to take place; in fact, a literal reading o f these verses gives an impossible progression, as will be discussed in the Comment Such ambiguity would have been insufferable if this were the text for this day from the priestly professional knowledge. T he in ten t o f this speech then was to instruct the laity in o rd er th at they m ight understand the liturgical procedures of this day and their purposes, because the achievem ents o f this day were essential to their continued well-being as the forgiven people of God. These instructions also encouraged the p eo p le’s resolve to adhere to the ordinances requiring them to afflict themselves by a total fast and to cease from all work (vv 29, 31). A nother im portant characteristic of this speech to be set out at the beginning o f the discussion on its structure is that it has several peculiar linguistic features. Several words are used distinctly in this speech. ‫ט מא ת‬, “uncleannesses,” in the

226

Leviticus 16:1-34

plural, is rare in the OT. O f its five occurrences three are here (vv 16 [2x], 19) and the o th er two are in Ezek 36 (vv 25, 29; the occurrences in Ezekiel could be a result o f a literary connection with this speech [so H. Haag, Was lehrt die literansche Untersuchung des Ezechiel-Texts? (Freiburg in d er Schweiz: P aulusdrucherei, 1953) 38]). T he use o f ‫ הקד ש‬for the Holy o f Holies (vv 2 ,1 6 ,1 7 , 20, 23, 27, b u t in v 3 for the area o f the Tent) is unusual. It is used unquestionably this way and elsewhere only in Ezek 41:23 (cf. 41:21; for taking ‫ הקד ש‬thro u g h o u t Lev 16 to m ean “the san ctu ary ” see Messel [ZAW 27 (1907) 10-11]). T he m ore usual phrase is ‫ ק ד ש הקד שים‬, “the Holy o f H olies” (e.g., Exod 26:33). It is, furtherm ore, curious th at ‫ענן‬, “cloud,” in its two occurrences is used differently (cf. A artun, ST 34 [1980] 77). In v 2 it refers to the visible m anifestation o f Yahweh’s glory; but in v 13 it is for a cloud of incense. This latter use is found again only in Ezek 8:11. T he inexplicable word “Azazel” occurs only in this text (vv 8, 10 [2x], 26). The use o f ‫ א חי ך‬, “your b rother,” with Aaron, which occurs with Aaron in Exod 4:14; 7:1, 2; 28:1, 2, 4, 41; Num 20:8; 27:13; D eut 32:50, comes only here in Leviticus. T h ere is also a curious an d n o t readily explicable flu ctu atio n in term s for the audience: ‫ ע ם‬, “p eople” (vv 15, 24 [2x]), ‫ ע ד ה‬, “congregation” (v 5), and ‫ ק ה ל‬, “assembly” (v 17); the tautological phrase ‫ ע ם ה ק ה ל‬, “the people of the assembly,” occurs in the OT only in v 33. U nexpectedly the key term ‫ כ פ ר‬, “expiate,” is used in three configurations: ‫כפר ב ע ד‬, ‫ כ פ ר את‬, and ‫כפר על‬. ‫ כ פ ר על‬is the usual expression with people, and it occurs this way in the last section of this speech (vv 30, 33 [2x], 34; cf. 1:4; 8:34). But in o th er places in this speech ‫ כ פ ר על‬has a differen t force. In v 10 it has as its object the goat th at will carry away the p eo p le’s sins, and in v 16 the sanctuary is its object. In place of the usual ‫ כ פ ר ע ל‬stands ‫( כ פ ר ב ע ד‬vv 6, 11, 17, an d 24). This preposition with ‫ כ פ ר‬occurs elsew here only in 9:7 and Ezek 9:7; 45:17 (cf. Exod 32:30 with ‫ חטא תכ ם‬, “your sins,” as object o f ‫ ; ב ע ד‬cf. 2 C hr 30:18). T he form ‫ כ פ ר את‬has the tent or the altar or the sanetuary as its d irect object (vv 20, 32, 33 [2x]). This last configuration occurs elsewhere only in Ezek 45:20 with ‫ הבי ת‬, “the sanctuary,” as the direct object. But in a few o th er places ‫ כ פ ר‬has a direct object; it stands before the nou n “iniquity” in Ps 78:38 and Dan 9:24, and in two texts it has a pronom inal suffix (in Ps 65:4[3] ‫פשעינו‬, “o u r iniquities,” is the antecedent, and in Ezek 43:20 “the altar” is the antecedent). Q uite rem arkable is the omission o f the phrase ‫נ סל ח‬, “h e /s h e is forgiven,” in conjunction with ‫ כ פ ר‬as it is used in the regulation for the lesser purification offering in 4:20, 26, 31. These facts indicate that there has been a shift in the usage o f ‫ כ פ ר‬. The goal of atonem ent on this day, then, is different from that for the purification offerings (chap. 4). In contrast to the expiation of a certain sin as the purification offering achieves, these rituals expiate the aggregate o f the sinful deeds com m itted by m em bers of the congregation or the congregation as a whole during the last year, and certain of the blood rites cleanse the cultic fu rn itu re from the pollution drawn to the sanctuary from the priests’ and the p eo p le’s sins an d incidents of their becom ing unclean. This cleansing is the distinct achievem ent of expiation on this day, as is clearly expressed in the wording o f v 30a, ‫ י כ פ ר עליכ ם לט הר אתכם‬, “he is to m ake expiation for you to make you clean.” In addition to these unusual linguistic features, there are several syntactical peculiarities (cf. A artun, ST 34 [1980] 78-80). A conclusion drawn from the com posite o f these linguistic anom alies is th at this regulation w ent through a long, com plex editorial process before it reached its present form.

Form/Structure/Setting

227

In an analysis o f the structure of this speech, the first striking fact is that there are two introductions. V 1 is a narrative introduction that recalls the incident of N adab and Abihu (10:1-7). W hereas some (e.g., N oth, 117) assume that the historical refere n ce indicates th a t this c h a p te r once follow ed chap. 10, Koch (Pnesterschnft, 92-93) holds that its inclusion is to call to m ind the event o f chap. 10 w ithout indicating its position in relationship to chap. 10. Koch comes to this position by observing the wide gap between vv 1 and 2 (cf. Messel, Z A W 27 [1907] 2-6). In his ju d g m en t v 2 has no connection with the incident of N adab and Abihu, for the restriction in v 2 is general in nature, i.e., against entering the Holy o f Holies at any time, no t against a specific action such as bringing strange fire into the sanctuary as N adab and Abihu did. V 2, furtherm ore, is closely tied to the following m aterial, while v 1 may be separated from the speech p ro p er w ithout any loss. T herefore, v 1 belongs to the historical narrative th at runs th ro u g h o u t the priestly m aterial in Exodus-Numbers. This opening verse, nevertheless, captures the solem n tone of this high day and brings attention to the awesome holiness of God by recalling what hap p en ed to A aron’s two sons. Ano th er possible fact may be com m unicated by vv 1 and 34b. They fram e this speech in such a way that this is n o t only the regulation for this solem n fast; it is at the same time the rep o rt of the first observance of the Day o f A tonem ent. V 1 then comes from the editor who assembled the priestly legislation. T he speech p ro p er has three portions. After the initial w arning (v 2a/3-b), the second one gives the regulation for the Day o f A tonem ent as Yahweh spoke to Moses and Moses addressed Aaron (vv 3-28). It is in the im personal third person and is dom inated by waw perfects. T he third portion is a calendrical text, which locates this solem n day in the liturgical calendar (vv 2 9-34a). It is m arked off by the personal address in vv 29-31, showing that this part of the speech is addressed directly to the congregation. T he first portion opens with a warning (v 2a/3-b) against entering the Holy o f Holies at any time. Many scholars assume that specific time(s) and occasion (s) when the high priest m ight en ter the sanctuary followed this w arning (Messel, Z A W 27 [1907] 5-6; cf. N oth, 119; Elliger, 203). T hat specific tim e is now stated in v 29. Messel (6) thinks th at with the inclusion of vv 29-34 the older time specifications becam e displaced (cf. Koch, Pñesterschñft, 93). If, however, v 2 is a w arning and n o t an instruction, then the identification of specific time(s) is n o t missing. T he second portion has two sections. T he section in vv 3-10 has two parts. T he first p art (vv 3-5) sets ou t preparatory requirem ents: the animals required for the high priest (v 3) and those for the people (v 5) and the clothing required o f the high priest (v 4). Most critical scholars regard v 4 as an intrusion, bu t the clothing w orn by the high priest while serving on this high day was a very importan t detail, especially since that clothing was m uch sim pler than his usual regal vestments. T he im portance of this detail is confirm ed by a reference to the high priest’s clothing in two o ther sections (vv 23-24 and 32b). This reference, furtherm o re, establishes a them atic tie with o th er texts in the priestly m aterial, namely Exod 28; 39:1-31; Lev 8:7-9; 10:6. T he second p art of this section (vv 6 10) gives the liturgical order of this day, concentrating on the determ ination of the destiny o f the peo p le’s two goats (vv 7-10). Vriezen identifies the genre of this second p art as “a liturgical festival agenda” ( OTS 7 [1950] 229).

228

L e v it ic u s 1 6 :1 - 3 4

T he next section (vv 11-28) presents the ritual o rd er of this day in skeleton form . T here is some obvious overlapping between this section and vv 6-10. In fact, v 11a has the same w ording as v 6. A scribe may have chosen the same sentence as a way o f com m unicating that the following regulation is to be understood as retu rn in g to the same point in the progression o f the ritual as at v 6. T he shift in contexts produces, however, a shift in the m eaning o f the im p o rtan t word ‫ ה ק רי ב‬. In v 6 it has the broad m eaning “com plete the sacrificial ritual,” while in v 11 it has the narrow m eaning “present,” since the next rite is ‫שחט‬, “slaughter,” a specific rite. This rite is specifically m entioned, for this regulation gives special consideration to the unique blood rites done inside the Holy o f Holies (vv 1415). Inserted parenthetically between the slaughtering and the sprinkling o f the blood are special instructions on m aking smoke from incense (vv 1 2 1 3 ‫ ) ־‬in ord er that the high priest m ight create a cloud to p rotect him self from Yahweh’s glory in the Holy o f Holies. Usually these verses are treated as an insertion, but an ancient au th o r did n o t have the ability to use footnotes to present essential, though parenthetical, inform ation. T he next ritual is the slaughter o f the p eo p le’s purification offering and the m anipulation o f its blood (v 15). T he purpose o f this blood rite receives an expanded, though parenthetical, explanation in vv 16-17. Surprisingly, this explanation m akes a m ajor shift in the direction o f the work o f ‫ כ פ ר‬, “ex p iate” (cf. Vriezen, OTS7 [1950] 226). Instead o f the expected statem ent th at expiation is m ade for the people, as is the case with the high priest (v 11a), it states that the Holiest Place is atoned (‫ ) כ פ ר‬from the uncleanliness o f the Israelites. T hat cleansing is the issue in v 16 is confirm ed by the next rite, the daubing o f some blood on the horns of the altar to make expiation for (‫ ) כ פ ר על‬it and then the sprinkling of blood on it seven times in order to cleanse (‫ ) ט ה ר‬it and sanctify (‫) ק ד ש‬ it (vv 18-19). T here is a shift then from expiating the p eo p le’s sins to cleansing the sanctuary from the im purities released by the p eo p le’s and priests’ sins and the occasions o f their being unclean (chaps. 11-15). A possible reason for this shift may have been to distinguish between the achievem ents o f the ritual with the living goat and those of the ritual with the goat offered to Yahweh. Since the living goat clearly carried away the congregation’s sins (vv 2 1 2 2 ‫) ־‬, the blood rite with the goat for Yahweh m ust have an o th er purpose, i.e., to purge the sanctuary. This is the way the sum m ary statem ent in v 20 reads. This refinem ent in the achievements o f the blood rites o f the peo p le’s purification offering did n o t affect the purpose o f the high priest’s purification offering since he did n o t make any offering com parable to the living goat. But an o th er tradition did n o t accept this division in the purposes of the p eo p le’s two goats, for v 17b, which is awkwardly phrased and placed (cf. Landersdorfer, Studien, 87), states that the blood rites in the H oliest Place make expiation for both the priests and the assembly o f Israel. This sum m ary statem ent was included, probably from an o th er tradition, to state th at the blood rites from the p eo p le’s purification offering m ade expiation for the people ju st as the high priest’s purification offering m ade for him self and his household. This position was reinforced by the use of the inclusive phrase in v 1 6, ‫ ומפשעיהם לכל־חטאתם‬, “and from their acts o f rebellion to all th eir sins.” T hat this phrase overburdens v 16a suggests that it is an addition. T he last portion (w 29-34a) also witnesses to the effort to hold together two traditions by stressing that expiation is m ade for both the priests and the people as well as for the cultic

Form/Structure/Setting

229

fu rn itu re (vv 30-34). Interestingly, it states in v 30 that the people are “expiated” in o rd er “to be cleansed” (‫ לט הר‬. . . ‫) י כ פ ר‬. Next comes the ritual in which the peo p le’s sins were transferred to the living goat (vv 20-22). T he goat here is called ‫ ה שעיר החי‬, “the goat that lives,” instead of the goat for Azazel. This descriptive nam e corresponds to the nam e of the bird, i.e., ‫ ה צ פ ר החיה‬, “the living b ird ,” released at the cerem ony to reinstate a person who had recovered from a serious skin disease (14:6-7). This nam e for the goat suggests th at this ritual had a different tradition history than the liturgical instructions about the two goats in vv 7-10. T he details here about the high priest laying his hands on the goat’s head and the m an in readiness to lead the goat into the wilderness are a fu rth er witness to this p o rtio n ’s being a m ore rustic account than th at found in vv 7-10. T he next ritual is the sacrifice of the high priest’s ram and the peo p le’s ram as whole offerings (vv 23-25). This section ends with parenthetical instructions concerning those who have obligations outside the camp, because of the particular rites of this day (vv 26-28). This parenthetical m aterial is to inform the congregation about two vital procedures on this day so that they will understand how certain activities are carried out in o rd er to be in com pliance with the laws on ritual purity that were such a vital p art of the ordering of their everyday lives. T he third portion (vv 29-34) is a calendrical prescription for the inclusion of this solem n day in the national calendar. T he distinct style and language of this portion reveal th at it is ;n accord with the m aterial concerning this day in the calendrical text (23:26-32). This m aterial is im mediately distinguished from the preceding by the use of direct address, the second person plural and the divine first person. Nevertheless, vv 32-33 stand in the third person im personal style, b u t they are held in this section by v 34a, according to Elliger (207). In hisjudgm en t the re tu rn to the im personal style was to make the laws in these verses categorical. T he ties with the calendrical text are clear: ‫ ענ ה את״נפשתיכם‬, “afflict yourselves,” in vv 29, 31 and 23:27, (29), 3 2 ; ‫ כ פ ר עליכ ם‬, “make expiation for you,” in vv 30, 33b, 34; 23:28 and as is the usual expression in the preceding sacrificial legislation; ‫ ה ק ת עולם‬, “perpetual ordinance,” in vv 29, 31, 34 and 23:31 along with 17:7; 23:14, 21, 41; 24:3, 9 (this phrase occurs earlier in 3:17; 7:36; 10:9 and with th e a lte rn a te spelling ‫ ח ק־ עו ל ם‬in 6:11 [18], 1 5 [2 2 ]; 7:34; 1 0 :1 5 ); ‫ שבת שבתון‬, “sabbath o f solem n rest,” in v 31 and 23:32; ‫ כ ל־ מ ל א כ ה לא תעשו‬, “do no t do any work,” in vv 29 and 23:28, (30), 31; ‫ היום הזה‬, “this day,” in v 30 and 23:28, 29, 30 (the last two verses have ‫ ב ע צ ם‬, “on this very,” in fro n t of this day). T here are other linguistic ties between this portion and the Holiness Code, and som etimes there are ties with what precedes. T he use o f ‫ אזר ח‬, “citizen,” in v 29 finds a connection with w hat follows (17:15; 18:26; 19:34; 23:42; 24:16, 22), b u t n o n e with the speeches that precede. Nevertheless, ‫ אזרח‬stands in some disjunction with chap. 17, for th at speech uses the phrase ‫ איש איש מבית ישראל‬, “an Israelite,” in the first three laws (vv 3, 8, 10), but ‫ אזרח‬occurs in 17:15. To ‫ אז ר ח‬, “citizen,” is jo in e d the phrase ‫ הגר הגר בתוככם‬, “the alien who lives am ong you.” This phrase occurs frequently in chap. 17 (vv 8 [1 0 ,1 2 ,1 3 ,[‫ )יגור‬and several times in the Holiness Code (18:26; 19:33 [‫]יגור‬, 34 ; 20:2 ; ‫ גר‬, “alien,” also occurs in 23:22; 24:16, 22; 25:23, 35, 47 [2x]), b u t n o t in the preceding m aterial in Leviticus. These characteristics u nique to vv 29-34a in chap. 16, along with the brevity of the calendrical material for this day in 23:26-32 in comparison with the material on

230

L e v it ic u s 1 6 :1 - 3 4

the o th er festivals in chap. 23, suggest that some of the m aterial in vv 29-34a may have been taken from that or a similar festival calendar. It is also conceivable that the au th o r who com posed that portion o f chap. 23 com posed this section. In either case the calendrical m aterial was added to this regulation for an un n am ed day of expiation in o rd er to make sure that there would be no debate as to which day in the calendar was being regulated by this speech. Certainly these two texts were n o t com posed independently. For exam ple, as stated above, this editor sought to preserve both perspectives on the achievem ents o f expiation by the special blood rites, for v 30 speaks of both ‫ כ פ ר‬, “m aking expiation,” and ‫ ט ה ר‬, “cleansing,” and in v 33 the cult is expiated as well as the priests and the people. A nother exam ple o f a tie to vv 3-28 is v 32, w herein Aaron is given prom inence and yet is to wear the sim pler sacred linen garm ents as prescribed in v 4. A nother change is that the editor o f this last portion stressed the role of A aron’s successor (v 32). T h at is why he established a tie with the account of the ordination of A aron in chap. 8 by using the term s ‫משח‬, “an o in t” (8:12; 21:10; cf. 4:3, 5, 16; 6:13[20], 15[22]; 7:3536), and "T ‫ מ ל א‬, “fill the h a n d ” (8:33; also 21:10). As far as genre is concerned, this portion belongs to the same general genre as the second section o f the first portion, liturgical directions in a calendrical text. It is also evident th at this last portion becam e attached to this regulation at a later date. From this analysis the character o f this entire speech may be addressed. N oth says th at there is “a strange lack of continuity and unity about the w hole” (117). O r in the words o f Vriezen (OTS 7 [1950] 225), there is a “lack o f coh eren ce.” T he speech is beset with repetitions, unique usage o f words, overlappings in the ritual order, gaps in details, parenthetical statem ents, and theological tensions. T here have been several attem pts to in terp ret the origin and developm ent o f this speech by analyzing these rough places. But given the paucity of data, these attem pts have p roduced a wide variety o f conjectures with virtually no consensus. A nother proposal without some new evidence will n o t prove to be very helpful. Nevertheless, some observations may have value in the in terp re tatio n o f this speech. How can the literary unevenness and the theological tensions in this speech be accounted for? As stated above, the literary features indicate that it circulated as a self-contained docum ent. Each o f the various central sanctuaries in Israel’s history would have had its own copy of the ritual, and each local sanctuary may have had its own copy. It is very likely that the wording of a text at a given sanctuary becam e adapted to the particular m an n er in which the rites were done at that sanctuary. E.g., one sanctuary may have placed m ore emphasis on the rite of riddance, while another emphasized the sprinkling of the blood in the Holy of Holies. A nother exam ple is that in one tradition the goat was known as the living goat and in an o th er as the goat of Azazel. How m any of these texts survived is, of course, unknown. T heir transmission and survival were com plicated by the strong possibility that this austere day fell out of observance during seasons of apostasy in the Kingdom era. W hen the post-exilic scribes came to establish the canonical text for this day, they apparently had to work with differing texts, m ost likely fragm ented texts, containing different emphases. How the post-exilic scribes collected them and worked on them to provide a single authoritative text is unfortunately unknow n. It is reasonable to assume th at they found the texts on the Day o f A tonem ent in two genres: a liturgical text for a calendar and a regulation for the

Form/Structure/Setting

231

ritual of this day. There may have been fragments from a third genre, a report of the first observance of this solem n day. T he goal of the scribes was to produce the best text that preserved the variety of traditions they had received. As typical of the Jewish community, the scribes strove to keep the variety of traditions intact, even those in tension, so that all these traditions might enrich the observance of the day. The scribes were m ore concerned with preserving what they had received than with making a smooth literary piece. For them the received tradition was far m ore im portant than a consistent text free from any theological tensions. Such a scenario, furtherm ore, m eans that it is virtually impossible to uncover and date the various developm ents leading to the present text. It is held, therefore, that the literary complexity o f this chapter is evidence that the scribes collected and ed ite d well-worn texts in o rd e r to preserve the traditions o f this day in the Pentateuch. The word Yahweh spoke to Moses was not frozen and hidden in some vault, but it was heard, copied, and made contem porary until it was canonized. In other words, it went through a long, complex transmission history before it received its final form. It is instructive to observe how the scribes assem bled the various texts that had come to them. They employed the literary principle of interchange to tie the speech together. With this technique they m olded together the different rites from the different texts. T he result is a rem arkable tapestry. T he m ost distinctive threads are the offerings required of the high priest and the congregation (A = high priest [ 1 = bull; 2 = ram ]; B = people [ la = goat for Yahweh; 1β = goat for Azazel; 2 = ram ]): high priest’s bull and ram (v 3b) A1+ A2 people’s goats and ram (v 5) B11/3+ ‫ ״‬+ B2 high priest’s bull (v 6) A1 people’s goats (vv 7-10) B1‫ ״‬+ λβ sacrifice of high priest’s bull (vv 11-14) A1 sacrifice of people’s goat (vv 15-17a) Bla ritual at the altar with blood of bull and of goat (vv 18-19) A1+ Bla people’s goat for Azazel (vv 20b-22) B1/3 rams for whole offerings (v 24b) A2+ B2 further ritual with the purification offering (v 25) A1+ Bla regarding person who released goat to Azazel (v 26) B1/3 regarding disposal of remains of purification offerings (vv 27-28) A1+ Bla T he pattern o f this interchange is quite variegated because o f the interplay of handling five animals: two animals offered early for the high priest and two offered for the congregation plus the peo p le’s goat for Azazel. A nother them e interchanged in a variegated p attern is the object of expiation, priests (A), people (B), or parts o f the sanctuary (C): priests (v 6b) people (v 10b) priests (v 11a) holy place (v 16) priests and people (v 17b) altar (v 18) holy place and altar (v 20a)

A B A C1 A+B C2 C 1+ C2

L e v it ic u s 1 6 :1 - 3 4

232

priests and people (v 24a) people (v 30) holy place, Tent, and altar (v 33a) priests and people (v 33b) people (v 34a)

A+B B C 1+ C3 + C2 A+B B

A n o th er th read in the tapestry is the referen ce to Yahweh’s appearing in the cloud. This is said expressly in v 2b, and there are directions for using incense to form a cloud to conceal Aaron from Yahweh’s presence in vv 12-13. A nother th read is the danger in h eren t in entering the Holy of Holies. T he chapter opens with a w arning about the penalty of death for approaching the Holy o f Holies unworthily or at an unassigned tim e (v 2). This penalty is m entioned again in v 13b, and in the same vein there is the parenthetical instruction, which assumes this warning, th at no person may be present in the Tent when the high priest enters to make expiation in the Holy of Holies (v 17a). T he im portance o f ‫ כ פ ר ת‬, The A tonem ent Slate,” for the blood rites of this day is an o th er colorful thread. It is m entioned twice in v 2 in anticipation of its vital role in the blood rites perform ed inside the Holy of Holies (vv 14, 15). A curious thread that ties to the concerns of ritual purity in chaps. 11-15 is the instruction for the high priest’s washing and changing his clothing (v 4). A dditional in stru ctions ab o u t his b ath in g an d changing his garm ents com e in vv 23-24a, to re tu rn again in v 32b. C onnected with this them e is the reference to the bathing and changing of clothes o f the two people who had obligations outside the cam p (vv 26, 28). W hile the two whole offerings are n o t em phasized, they are kept before the audience by being m entioned three times (vv 3, 5, a n d 24). T hey are given a little m o re a tte n tio n by th e rite o f th e high priest’s bathing him self and putting on his regal clothes before m aking them (vv 23-24a). T he principle of interchange has, therefore, been chosen to hold together the diverse, com plex m aterial in this speech. T he en d product may be ju d g ed to be a rough text or a beautifully variegated text, d epending on o n e ’s viewpoint. A nother clue as to how this speech was assembled is the possible presence of a chías tic pattern: A

narrative and introduction (vv 1-2) calendrical agenda (vv 3-10) C liturgical regulations (vv 11-28) B' calendrical instructions (vv 29-34a) A' compliance report (v 34b) B

T he center o f the chiasm appropriately receives the emphasis. In fact, v 11 is considered by virtually all analysts to m ark a m ajor transition. This layer comes from the old regulation for this day. T he layers on both sides o f the center treat the day as a p art o f the calendar. This is clear in vv 29-34a as seen above. Vv 3-10 appear to be older than vv 29-34a. It is possible th at the scribe who located w 29-34a may have been responsible for the chías tic arran g em en t o f this speech, especially the balancing o f this calendrical text with the liturgical festival agenda in vv 3-10. T he difference in the use of ‫ כ פ ר‬, “expiation,” nevertheless, indicates th at these two paragraphs came from different sources. T he speech is finally

Form/Structure/Setting

233

enveloped with a narrative introduction (v 1) and a com pliance re p o rt (v 34a); this m aterial came from the editors who p u t the priestly m aterial together. In the Form/Structure/Setting section of chap. 9, it was argued th at th at speech, which rep o rted the ordination o f Aaron and his sons as an event, also served as the regulation for the ordination of future high priests. These dual purposes may govern this speech too, but with emphasis in reverse order. As it stands, this speech presents the regulation for the observance o f the annual Day o f A tonem ent. Yet there are some indicators that at the same tim e it reports the first observance of this fast day. T he clearest p ro o f of this position is the final com pliance statem ent (v 34b), which states that Aaron did as Yahweh had com m anded Moses. This may be taken to m ean that Aaron celebrated the first Day of A tonem ent at M ount Sinai. T hat possibility finds greater significance in the historical tie in v 1. H ere th en is re p o rted an o th er event that took place in Israel’s wilderness experience (Exod 16-N um 36) after the death of A aron’s sons. A m ajor difficulty with this proposal is th at Moses set up the Tent o f M eeting on the first day of the first m onth (Exod 40:2), and he took the census rep o rted in N um bers on the first day o f the second m onth (Num 1:1). In this schem e the Day o f A tonem ent would have been observed in the first m onth. T h at would have been a very full m onth indeed. It would have had to occur after the eighth day o f the m onth (9:1). This may account for its com ing on the tenth day o f the m onth. In addition, there may be fu rth er connections between the events of chap. 10 and this day. The first observance o f this day may have been to purge the sanctuary from the pollution o f the transgression of N adab and Abihu. T hat this day has n eith er a nam e n o r a date in the prim ary text (vv 2-28) may m ean that in the First Tem ple the date of this day floated. It was n o t until the inclusion of the calendrical m aterial in vv 2934 that the date for this day was set as the tenth o f the seventh m onth. W hether there ever was a narrative account o f the first observance of this day separate from the regulations for it is impossible to know. Am ong critical scholars, Elliger observes these two different purposes in this speech (208; cf. Porter, 125). To begin, Elliger believes that the priestly narrative o f the festive high day for the first public worship of the new cult followed by the transgression o f the two priests (8:1-10:9) n eeded a counterpart in the inauguration of the Day of A tonem ent (208). T he old historical re p o rt is found in w l-2b¿7, 3a(?), 4, 11, 14-15, 17, 20b, 22b-24, 34b. How m uch of this rep o rt has been lost is unknown. In this account the theological center was the sprinkling of the blood for ato n em ent of the priests and the people. T hen, in Elliger’s judgm ent, this Vorlage was consciously reworked w ithout altering the received text in o rd er to address m ore fully the process of expiation. To this second stage belong w 3 (outside o f a), 5-10, 16 (less ay), 18-20a, 21 (less a6), 22a, and 25-28. This editor elevated the im portance o f the release of the sin-laden goat. In fact, the im portance o f this goat was placed on the same level as that of the goat to Yahweh (vv 7-10). This editor adjusted the theology to include the rites with both the goats. T he rites with the blood from the goat for Yahweh cleansed the sanctuary and the altar o f im purity (vv 16, 18-20a), and the rite with the living goat rem oved all m oral guilt to Azazel in the wilderness (vv 21, 22a). T he com bined m aterial was the re p o rt of the installation and the first observance of the Day of A tonem ent. In the third stage this re p o rt was tu rn ed into the cerem ony for the annual observance of this day. T he editor p referred the divine first person form.

234

Leviticus 1 6 :1 3 4 ‫־‬

H e inserted vv 2b/3y, 12f, and especially vv 29-34a. H e moved so far away from the historical base that he expressly m ade A aron’s successor answerable for the continued observance of this regulation (v 32). Theologically he did no t distinguish so sharply between ‫ט מא ת‬, “uncleannesses,” and ‫עונות‬, “iniquities”; these two concepts were u n ited u n d er the general term ‫ ח טאת‬, “sins.” T he achievem ents of the rites with the p eo p le’s two goats were placed u n d e r a single rubric (vv 16ay and 21a6). This editor laid special em phasis on the character o f this day as a day o f penance by stressing self-denial and cessation o f all work. To this layer Elliger (209), in opposition to von Rad (The Problem of the Hexateuch) and R endtorff, assigns the cloud produced by the incense (vv 2β γ and 12-13). This final stage may have taken place with the inclusion o f the Holiness Code or at the latest in the time o f Ezra. This reconstruction, which is very different from the approach suggested here, agrees in the claim that this speech served significantly different purposes and contains a variety o f theological em phases. In summary, this speech is the regulation for the oral instruction of the congregation on the liturgical order and distinct rituals of the Day of A tonem ent. This speech was delivered to the Israelites on those occasions when all of Leviticus was delivered. It may also have been delivered as p art o f the observance o f this day. Comment

1-2 In the first heading to this speech there is reference to the tragic deaths o f A aron’s two sons, N adab and Abihu, re p o rted in chap. 10. Since no fu rth e r inform ation about the incident is found in this chapter, why does this reference stand at the head o f the regulation for the Day o f A tonem ent? T he reason is to sternly warn the high priest to conduct him self properly when he enters the Holy o f Holies on the Day of A tonem ent so th at he does n o t lose his life as they did (cf. 22:2). T he high priest may n o t en ter ‫ ה ק ד ש‬, “the H oliest Place,” any time he wishes. He may en ter only on specified occasions like the Day o f A tonem ent. Some hold th at this instruction accords with later practices, as reflected in H eb 9:6-7, which lim ited his access to the Holy of Holies to this one day of the year. O n this high day Yahweh himself promises to appear in a cloud over ‫ כ פ ר ת‬, “the A tonem ent Slate.” T hat is, Yahweh will m anifest his presence in ‫ענן‬, “the cloud,” which both reveals and conceals his presence (cf. Exod 25:22). Rashi (73), however, takes the w ording to m ean that God constantly m anifests him self here in the cloud. W ithin the Holy of Holies, set apart from the Holy Place by an elegant ‫ פ ר כ ת‬, “cu rtain ” (Exod 26:31), was the Ark o f the Covenant. T he Ark was a rectangular chest m ade o u t of acacia wood and overlaid with gold (Exod 25:10-20). Gold rings on the sides of the Ark p erm itted poles of acacia wood overlaid with gold to be inserted so th at the Ark could be transported by appointed Levites. O n top of it was a table or sheet of gold called ‫ כ פ ר ת‬, which traditionally has been translated “mercy-seat,” for here God displayed his mercy in providing his people a place for finding atonem ent. T he ‫ כ פ ר ת‬, forty-four inches by twenty-six, was identical to the top o f the Ark o f the Covenant. It was m ade o f pure gold, being one piece with the two golden cherubim over which Yahweh was en th ro n e d (Exod 25:1722; cf. 1 Sam 4:4; Ps 99:1). From between the cherubim and over the ‫ כ פ ר ת‬, Yahweh m et with Moses (Exod 25:22). T he fact that the ‫ כפר ת‬was m ade o f pure gold accounts for its height n o t being given; it probably was quite thin. Since the ‫כפרת‬

Comment

235

sat atop the Ark and since there is no m ention of a lid or door for the Ark, some have postulated th at the ‫ כפר ת‬functioned as the lid for the Ark (Rashi, 227, and Kimchi, and m o d ern interpreters like Dillmann, 313, Elliger, 211, and Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, tr. I. Abraham s [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967] 33236). A few derive the m eaning “lid” for ‫ כפרת‬by claiming that the etymology of the verb ‫ כ פ ר‬is “cover,” like the Arab ro o t kfr. This position faces some difficulties. First, as m entioned in the Excursus on ‫( כ פ ר‬at 4:20-21), this etymology m erits litde weight. Second, the term ‫ארון‬, “ark, chest,” implies an enclosed box that would n o t need a separate lid (Janowski, Suhne, 274-75). Third, ‫ כפרת‬is m uch m ore closely connected with the cherubim than with the Ark (Janowski, 275, 33946; Exod 25:18-19). In H a ra n ’s ju d g m en t, the Ark and the A tonem ent Slate “constitute fundam entally separate objects” ( Temples, 248). Fourth, in 1 C hr 28:11 the Holy o f Holies is called ‫ בי ת הכפר ת‬, “the house o f the A tonem ent Slate.” This nam e for this p art of the Tent of M eeting seems impossible if ‫ כפר ת‬simply m eant “lid” (Keil and Delitzsch, 168). In this light ‫ כפר ת‬was n o t viewed as being primarily a lid for the Ark. T he reason that this piece of furniture received the nam e ‫ כפר ת‬then lies with its cultic function. It is at the ‫ כפר ת‬th at the m ost critical blood rites for achieving expiation were perform ed on the Day of A tonem ent, for the ‫ כפר ת‬was the cultic line of dem arcation between Yahweh and his people, the place where G od’s people m ight find forgiveness from the transcendent God, who m anifested his presence in the cloud (Janowski, Sühne, 347). W orking from a similar perspective and taking ‫ כ פ ר‬to m ean “p ropitiate,” some re n d er ‫“ כפרות‬a place of propitiation,” “propitiatory covering,” or “a propitiatory” (cf. B. Childs, The Book of Exodus [Philadelphia: W estminster Press, 1974] 524; Fryer, EvQ 59 [1987] 113). This receives support from both the LXX translation, ίλαστήριον, and the Vg, propitiatoHum. But on the basis of the Excursus on ‫ כ פ ר‬at 4:20-21, ‫כ פ ר‬ predom inantly m eans “expiate,” and, because the blood rites perform ed here cleansed the Holiest Place (v 33), a nam e with “expiation” or “ato n em en t” is preferable for this piece of furniture. W orking with the very lim ited vocabulary for atonem ent in m odern English, we use the nam e A tonem ent Slate. Slate makes clear th at ‫ כפר ת‬is a thin object, and atonem ent describes its function as the place where the people o f the covenant m aintained fellowship with their God by means o f the expiating blood rites perform ed here on the Day of A tonem ent. In the Ark were the tablets of the Ten C om m andm ents, which symbolize the covenant betw een Yahweh and Israel. To m aintain this relationship between Yahweh, the holy God, and Israel, a sinful people, atonem ent is necessary. T he A tonem ent Slate plays a critical role in securing that atonem ent. Since it stands as the boundary between the en th ro n e d God and the tablets of the covenant, figuratively speaking, Yahweh looks down on the covenant through the blood dabbed on the A tonem ent Slate, leading him to govern his people out of mercy and forgiveness. 3-4 T he high priest is to bring for him self and his house two animals, a young bull for a purification offering (‫ ;חטא ת‬cf. 4:3) and a ram for a whole offering (‫; ע ל ה‬ 1:10-13; 8:18-21). For the cerem ony the high priest is to p u t on linen garm ents, i.e., pants, robe, sash, and turban. These are n o t the stately garm ents o f majesty and dignity th at the high priest norm ally wears (cf. 8:13), n eith er does he p u t on the gold and jewels (Exod 28:5-39). R ather he wears sim pler garm ents like the o th er priests usually wear while on duty at the altar (Exod 28:40-42). O n this

236

L e v it ic u s 1 6 :1 - 3 4

solemn day he approaches God dressed hum bly and contritely “W hite” stands for simplicity, purity, and holiness; this symbolism is especially appropriate for his entering into Yahweh’s presence. T he garm ents, nevertheless, are sacred (‫) ק ד ש‬ like the m ore o rn ate garm ents, for they have been m ade for this purpose and are h oused at the sanctuary. They cover the high priest totally, in m odesty and respect before God. T he high priest puts on a turban; this distinguishes him from the o th er priests. Before putting on these clothes, the high priest is to wash himself in water, insuring his ritual purity before he begins to function as the high priest on this high day (Exod 28:2, 4; 31:10; 35:19; 39:1). 5 The congregation (‫ ; ע ד ה‬cf. 4:13), represented by tribal leaders, is to present two goats for a purification offering (‫ ) ח טא ת‬and a ram for a whole offering (‫; ע ל ה‬ cf. 8:18). It is interesting to note the statem ent th at both goats are for a purification offering, even though only one is offered on the altar (vv 9, 15). It is possible th at only the purification offering is m en tio n ed to keep the verse short and uncom plicated, o r it is possible, as Kiuchi (Punfication Offering, 147-56; also Feinberg, BSac 115 [1958] 332-33) holds, th at the rituals with the two goats com bine to make a single purification offering. A ccording to him , the rite with Azazel is a special adaptation o f the b u rn in g of the flesh o f the ordinary ‫ ח ט א ת‬, “purification offering,” outside the camp. While both goats are necessary to take away the p eo p le’s sin, there is no indication in the wording o f v 9 or vv 15 + 20b22 that the ritual with the goat sent to the wilderness was considered a purification offering. 6 T he high priest is to present (‫ ) ה ק רי ב‬his own bull for a purification offering first (cf. v 11a). ‫ הקריב‬here has a com prehensive m eaning, i.e., to follow the entire ritual for m aking this kind of offering (Levine, 104). He thereby makes expiation (‫ ) כ פ ר‬both ‫ ב ע דו‬, “for him self,” and ‫ ב ע ד ביתו‬, “for his own ho u se,” i.e., all the o th er priests. The use of ‫ ב ע ד‬, “in behalf of,” with ‫ כ פ ר‬, “expiate,” instead of the usual ‫ ע ל‬, “for,” may carry a different nuance as G arnet (“A tonem ent Constructions . . . EvQ 46 [1974] 144) suggests; nam ely ‫ ב ע ד‬conveys “a note of extra solemnity.” O r it may have arisen in this speech to keep distinct the use of ‫ כ פ ר‬, “expiate,” when dealing with persons and when dealing with objects (cf. Form/ Structure/Setting. T he high priest m ust m ake expiation for him self and his house before he is able to act as high priest on behalf of the people. 7 -1 0 T he high priest is next to have the two goats presented by the congregation stationed at the entrance to the Tent of M eeting. T here he is to cast lots over them to decide which one is to be sacrificed on the altar to Yahweh and which one is to be released into the wilderness to Azazel. Some, as Baentsch (383) and P orter (127), suggest that the Urim and the T hum m im (cf. Exod 28:30) may have been used to make this determ ination. N oth (121) describes a process by which two stones, one m arked for Yahweh and the o th er for Azazel, either in writing or by a symbol, were placed in a container, shaken up, and then drawn out. W hatever process was used, Aaron is to take the goat for Yahweh and sacrifice it as a purification offering (‫ ) ח טאת‬by perform ing the appropriate ritual. T he o th er goat is to be stationed (‫ ) ה ע מי ד‬live before Yahweh. T hen com es the phrase ‫ כ פ ר ע ל‬, which usually m eans “m ake expiation for it,” i.e., the goat. T he final phrase o f this verse, “by sending it to Azazel into the wilderness,” is in apposition to “to make expiation by it” in order to define how expiation will be accom plished with this particular goat. T he precise m eaning o f ‫ כ פ ר על‬is debated. O ne view

Com ment

237

interprets it to m ean that atonem ent is m ade for Azazel (Keil and Delitzsch, 348); this interpretation only leads to a truism. T hat leads others to view this phrase to be the result of a scribal e rro r (e.g., Noth, 121; Elliger, 201). O thers re n d er it “to atone over” the goat for Azazel (e.g., Kurtz, Saarificial Worship, 410). Kiuchi (PuHfication offering, 150-51) identifies the agent of the infinitive as the goat for Azazel and the object o f the preposition to be Aaron. H e finds v 22 to support his reading, for in that verse it is clear that this goat bears the iniquity. Clearly this phrase is included to underscore the fact that the rite with the goat for Azazel has expiating force, b u t the object of the expiation is hard to identify. It is possible th at the congregation is the object, even though that no u n is fem inine. V 22 suppo rts this position, for it states th at Azazel carries their, i.e., the Israelites’, iniquities to the wilderness. Kiuchi has an intriguing interpretation. According to him , Aaron “bears the guilt of the Israelites when he makes atonem ent for sancta (vv 1 4 -1 9 )” (Purification offering, 152). H e th en devolves this guilt on Azazel, and that goat carries it into the wilderness. While this position is suggesfive, an o th er way to look at the various rites of this day is that the pollution and bu rd en p roduced by hum an sin produce m any trajectories requiring that the process of expiation address these different trajectories. T he blood rites in the sanctuary and at the altar cleanse these holy instrum ents from the pollution reached by sin, while the goat bears the guilt and the burden produced by sin away from the congregation. In any case, the rites of this day indicate that both the sprinkling of the blood in the Holy of Holies and the release of the goat to Azazel are necessary for full expiation of the com m unity from all the consequences o f their sins. T he nam e ‫עז אז ל‬, “Azazel,” occurs only four times in the OT, all in this chapter (vv 8, 10 [2x], 26). Its m eaning has been disputed from ancient times. T here are four m ajor explanations. The first one takes it as a descriptive term for the goat itself. LXX and Vg understand it to be a com posite of two w o rd s,‫עז‬, “goat,” and ‫ אז ל‬, “go away,” i.e., “the goat which departs.” This position was continued in early authors like Aquila, T heodotion, Ibn Ezra, and H ieronym us (cf. Landersdorfer, Studien, 19-20). A m ajor difficulty with this widely held view is that the goat is “for Azazel” and is to be sent “to Azazel” (vv 8, 10, 26). It is hard to understand how the goat can be either for itself or sent to itself. A second possibility is articulated by Feinberg (BSac 115 [1958] 331-33). H e takes Azazel to be an abstract term m eaning “entire rem oval”; the phrase ‫ לעזאזל‬then m eans “for removal.” An argum ent against this position is that there are few abstract term s in Leviticus; in fact, the entire ritual of the Day of A tonem ent, including the release of this goat, is a symbolic enactm ent of spiritual realities. N either does this m eaning establish a good parallel with ‫לי הו ה‬, “for Yahweh.” A third view, which comes from the rabbinic tradition, takes this word as the place to which the goat departs. Rashi identifies the word as “a rocky precipice” (also Tg. Ps.-J. on v 10b, Sipra, Kimchi; Landersdorfer, Studien, 18). B. Yoma 63b renders it “hardest of the m ountains” as tho ug h it were w ritten ‫( עזז אל‬Ahituv 999). R. Saadia renders it M ount Azaz (Landersdorfer, Studien, 18), and Jastrow (1060) gives for it “a rough and rocky m ou n tain .” G. R. Driver (JSS 1 [1956] 98) supports this position; he takes it as a place nam e from the root ‫עזז‬, which is cognate to Arab cazazu, “rough g ro u n d .” While there is m uch to com m end this position, there are two difficulties. (1) ‫ ל עז אז ל‬, “for Azazel,” is parallel to ‫לי הו ה‬, “for Yahweh” (vv 8-10), suggesting that

238

L e v it ic u s

16: 1-34

Azazel is some type o f being ra th e r than a place. (2) If ‫ לעזאזל‬m eant “to a rocky precipice,” why is the place to which the goat goes called ‫ א ר ץ גזרה‬, “a separate lan d ,” in v 22? A fourth position holds that ‫ עזאזל‬is the nam e o f a dem on or even the devil him self (Keil and Delitzsch, 398). In later intertestam ental literature it was the nam e o f a principal evil spirit (Enoch 8:1; 9:6; 10:4-8; 13:1-2; 54:5; 55:4; 69:2). In a similar vein M. Segal refers to a tradition in the Talm ud that it is a com pound o f the nam es o f two fallen angels (“T he Religion o f Israel before Sinai,” JQR 53 [1962/63] 250). T he position that this was the nam e or nam es o f a dem on has the advantage of the two nam es being truly parallel (so de Vaux, AIf 509). Many object to this identification, however, for they cannot conceive that the Scriptures would prescribe a sacrifice or a gift to a dem on (cf. H arrison, 17071). Nevertheless, there are no indications at all th at this goat was offered as a sacrifice. It was n o t ritually slaughtered; n o r were there any rites for m anipulating its blood. In fact, because it carries the p eo p le’s sins, this goat was unclean, thus disqualifying it as a sacrifice. While the O T is very careful n o t to personify evil in a figure such as Satan, it does recognize that there are cosmic forces hostile to Yahweh. These forces are represented as either sea m onsters, such as Leviathan (e.g., Isa 27:1), o r satyrs that inhabit the desert (e.g., Isa 13:21). T he fact that these satyrs were th ought to be goadike favors the possibility that Azazel stands for one o f these dem ons, especially given the fact that p art of the nam e Azazel in Heb. m eans “goat.” W hether Azazel was the head o f the dem ons or the foreru n n e r o f Satan, there is no way o f knowing, but it can be affirm ed that such an identification is n o t the in ten t of the usage o f this nam e in this passage. If Azazel was a dem on, this rite m eans that the sins carried by the goat were re tu rn e d to this dem on for the purpose of rem oving them from the com m unity and leaving th em at th eir source in o rd e r th at th e ir pow er o r effect in the com m unity m ight be com pletely broken. T he difference between the third and the fourth options is n o t that great, for a society frequently nam es a place after an identity and vice versa. However the nam e Azazel is understood, the fact that such a rite of riddance was a p art o f the Day of A tonem ent is very significant. The use of ‫שלח‬, “send away,” in v 21 for the release of this goat into the wilderness carries the idea th at it was re le a se d in o rd e r “to w a n d er o r ro am freely, u n h in d e r e d ” (cf. J o b 39:5; Landersdorfer, Studien, 27). In the rite of aggregation for one cured of a grievous skin disease, ‫ שלח‬is also used for the release of the bird (14:7). F urtherm ore, the fact th at th at bird is called ‫ ה צ פו ר החיה‬, “the living b ird ” (14:7), ju st as this goat is called ‫ ה שעיר החי‬, “the living goat,” in v 20 attests th at these two rites have the same basic intent. In the earliest time, the goat was m ost likely sent away from the cam p to roam freely in the wilderness until its death. T he initial m eaning of this ritual was to provide a visual representation to the assembly of the reality that on this day th eir sins h ad been com pletely wiped out and the power of these sins was term inated forever (cf. H arrison, 171). This rite of riddance in Israel corresponds to the widely attested practice found am ong a variety of peoples, bearing witness to the deep social consciousness within com m unities that im purity or evil m ust be rem oved periodically from their midst. For such a ritual in Egypt, see Górg (BN 33 [1986] 12-13) and in Babylon see de Vaux, A I (508; also see Landersdorfer, Studien, 23-26; J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough [New York: T he MacMillan Company, 1925] 538-87).

Com ment

239

11-13 T he instruction for Aaron to bring n ear (‫ ; ה ק רי ב‬in contrast to v 6 here it has a restricted m eaning) his own bull for a purification offering (‫ ) ח טאת‬is rep e a te d . T his verse begins a n o th e r p ro to c o l o f th e liturgy fo r th e Day o f A tonem ent. It contains em phases different from those of the preceding b rief lit‫־‬ urgy. It, in any case, begins the liturgy at the same point as v 6. T he many elem ents o f the ritual n o t specified here may be assum ed to be the same as those in the regulation for a purification offering offered by the anointed priest (4:3-12). Only the prim ary difference, i.e., the m an n er of m anipulating the blood, is addressed in this regulation. Before taking the blood into the Holy of Holies, the high priest is to fill a censer (‫ )מחתה‬full of glowing coals taken from the altar and p u t on the coals two handfuls of finely g round incense (‫ ; סמים רק ה‬Exod 25:6). T he adjective ‫ ר ק ה‬, “fine,” com m unicates that the highest quality of incense is to be used on this day (Rashi, 75). The thick smoke ascending from the censer fills the Holy of Holies, protecting the high priest from the presence of Yahweh (cf. Porter, 130; Noordtzij, 165; H arrison, 172). Keil and Delitzsch (399) explain the purpose of the smoke differently. In th eir ju d g m e n t the b u rn in g incense represents the prayers o f the people entreating Yahweh to accept the blood o f the offerings and to graciously forgive his people. T he form er explanation is supported by the phrase ‫ ולא ימות‬, “lest he die,” in v 13b/3. This rite, furtherm ore, explains why the high priest was n o t so overcome by the glory of Yahweh th at he, like Moses (Exod 34:29-35), would have to veil him self in o rd er to continue officiating at the various rites of this day. T he latter interpretation, on the o th er hand, accounts for the careful details of this ritual, i.e., taking live coals from the m ain altar, putting fine incense on them , and putting them in a censer. These two explanations are n o t mutually exclusive. As seen in the discussion of the phrase ‫ ריח ניחח‬, “a soothing aro m a” (cf. 1:9), a pleasant arom a arouses Yahweh’s favor (Ps 141:2; cf. Dillmann, 579). T he effect of such an arom a on Yahweh is vividly attested in the in cid en t reco rd ed in N um 17:8-15 (16:43-50). Yahweh’s w rath was kindled against Korah and his family and was about to consum e the congregation. In haste Aaron took a censer and p u t into it fire from the altar and laid incense on top o f the fire. T h en he w ent quickly out into the assembly to make expiation for the people. In this way he stopped the plague, the instrum ent of Yahweh’s wrath. 14 In the Holy of Holies the high priest is to sprinkle some blood on the surface o f ‫ ה כ פ ר ת‬, “the A tonem ent Slate,” while facing eastward. Since Yahweh is viewed as en th ro n ed over the cherubim , facing eastward, this blood is sprinkled directly in front o f Yahweh’s feet (cf. Vriezen, OTS 7 [1950] 2 3 2 3 3 ‫) ־‬. T hen the high priest is to sprinkle (‫ ) הז ה‬some blood with his finger before the A tonem ent Slate seven times (cf. Comment on 4:5-7). T he n u m ber seven indicates com pleteness. No ex p lan atio n is given for the twofold rite o f sprinkling the blood. Conversely, the consecration of the anim al for sacrifice at the altar may be the po in t at which all parts of the animal, including its blood, are consecrated. Keil and Delitzsch (399) take the first rite to be for the expiation o f the priests’ and the p eo p le’s sins and the second rite for the cleansing of the sanctuary. While th ere is no textual support to prove or disprove this position, it does accord with the aim o f full expiation in the final form of the text. 15 N ext the high priest is to slaughter the p eo p le’s goat for a purification offering (‫)חטא ת‬. Presumably he leaves the Holiest Place and comes out to the co u rt to perform all the rites for this kind o f a sacrifice. H e is to take some blood

240

L e v it ic u s 1 6 : 1 - 3 4

from this sacrifice inside the H oliest Place and sprinkle it over the A tonem ent Slate and th en sprinkle some of it seven times against the A tonem ent Slate. 16 This rite o f sprinkling the blood cleanses (‫ ) כ פ ר‬the H oliest Place from the im purities (‫ )טמאת‬of the Israelites’ transgressions that have penetrated into the H oliest Place. All cases o f uncleanness o f the people (chaps. 11-15) pollute the sanctuary to some m easure. For the sanctuary to function effectively and for it to continue to abide in the m idst of the people, it m ust be cleansed annually. In addition, this rite cleanses the H oliest Place from the ‫פ שעים‬, “acts o f rebellio n ,” and from the ‫ ח ט א ת‬, “sins,” o f the Israelites. T he choice o f these term s recognizes th at the people sin n o t only accidentally and out o f ignorance, but also willfully. T he term ‫פ שע‬, “act o f rebellion,” stands for any acts that were intentional violations of G od’s law. This word covers the com m unity’s disposition to strive for its own good, placing itself above God, and it certainly encom passes any violation of the first four com m andm ents of the Decalogue. Milgrom points out that this is the only occurrence of this term in the priestly code. Its usage certainly com m unicates that willful sins were expiated by this rite. T he second term , ‫ ח ט א ת‬, stands for sins in general, regardless o f m agnitude. T he use o f these two term s with the prepositions ‫ מן‬, “fro m ,” and ‫ ל‬, “to ,” m eans th at every kind of wrongdoing, from an overt act to som ething done accidentally, is covered by this ritual. T he expiation accom plished is for the people as a whole. Kiuchi (Punfication Offenng, 128) holds that the phrase in v 16b, “thus he is to do for the Tent of M eeting,” m eans that the high priest is to perform rites o f sprinkling in the Holy Place in reference to the altar of incense as he is instructed in vv 14—15 to do in the Holy o f Holies. T he difficulty with this proposal is that it lacks support in the tradition. As a result of the achievem ents of this high day, a forgiven people may continue to worship Yahweh, their God, at a cleansed sanctuary. 17 Given the holiness of the Tent of M eeting and the high priest’s awesome task o f m anipulating the blood in the Holy of Holies, no one may be present in the H oliest Place while the high priest is perform ing these blood rites. T hat person would contam inate the Tent, rendering ineffectual the ritual p erform ed by the high priest and giving cause for the consum ing power of Yahweh’s glory to com e against everyone in the Tent. 18-19 T he priest is to go out to the altar; he is to p u t (‫ )נתן‬blood from both the bull, i.e., his own offering, and the goat, i.e,, the offering of the people, on the horns of the altar roundabout (cf. 8:15). Next he is to sprinkle (‫ )הזה‬blood on the altar seven times with his finger. This is the only time that any regulation prescribes “sprinkling” the m ain altar. Kiuchi (Punfication Offenng, 129) posits that this procedure is followed because “sprinkling” is m ore powerful than “p u ttin g ” blood on the altar. With this rite the high priest cleanses (‫ ) ט ה ר‬the altar and sanctifies (‫ ) ק ד ש‬it from the im purities of the people. Only here and in 8:15 is the altar said to be ‫ ק ד ש‬, “sanctified” (Kiuchi, 129). H offm ann (1:450) com m ents that ‫ טהר‬removes past defilem ent and ‫ קדש‬sanctifies the altar for future use. The identification of this altar is uncertain. Is it the altar o f incense in the Holy Place or is it the altar of b u rn t offerings before the Tent? Most gentile scholars like Dillm ann (579-80) identify it as the altar of b u rn t offerings before the Tent (cf. 8:15). Rashi (24-25) and H offm ann (1:450), like many Jewish interpreters, reason th at this altar is the golden altar inside the Holy Place before the curtain. Since ‫י צ א‬, “go o u t,” would suggest th at the high priest leaves the sanctuary, Rashi

Com ment

241

explains th at this verb m eans that the high priest m ust go outwards from the Holy o f Holies to the east side of this altar in o rder to begin the sprinkling at the n ortheast co rn er o f the altar. H arrison (173) agrees for two reasons. First, since the altar to be sprinkled is so closely associated with the Holiest Place and the Tent, it must be the one inside the Tent. Second, this altar of incense was sm eared with blood in two of the regulations of the purification offering (4:7, 18). However, it is m ore natural to take ‫יצא‬, “go o u t,” to m ean to leave the Tent of M eeting and to u nderstand ‫ מזבח‬to be the altar of whole offerings. Since the altar is not m ore specifically defined, one expects it to be the object that would first com e to m ind when this term was heard. F urtherm ore, nothing is said about any o f the three pieces of fu rniture in the Holy Place. If the sprinkling of the blood in the Holy o f Holies cleanses all parts of the Tent, it seems logical that a blood rite is also necessary to cleanse the m ain altar, representative of the furniture in the court, especially since this altar is used so heavily in the operation of the sanctuary. T h at the rite o f sprinkling the altar of the whole offering only took place on the Day o f A tonem ent indicates that its efficacy is intricately tied to the preceding cleansing o f the Holy of Holies (Kiuchi, Purification Offenng, 129). Since blood has been p u t on both the A tonem ent Slate and on the altar o f whole offering, the entirety o f the sanctuary, both the inside and the outside, is cleansed. 20-22 W hen the high priest has finished perform ing the rituals of expiation, he is to bring forw ard the living goat. H e is to place both of his hands on the goat’s head (cf. 1:4) and ‫ ה תוד ה‬, “confess,” over it all the sins o f the people. T hree term s are also used here for the peo p le’s sins: ‫עונות‬, “iniquities,” ‫ פ ^ עי ם‬, “rebellions”, and ‫ ח ט א ת‬, “sins” (cf. v 16). These three term s together encom pass all dim ensions of h um ans’ breaking o f G od’s law. F urtherm ore, all these term s are in the plural, indicative of the frequency and the totality of h um ans’ sinning. By confessing these sins with both hands placed on the goat’s head, the high priest transfers the sins of the com m unity to the goat. Rabbinic tradition stressed that the high priest’s confession had to “be m atched by the rem orse of the peo p le” (Milgrom, Encjud 5:1386) in o rd er to be effectual. T he goat is sent away into the wilderness (‫ ) מ ד ב ר‬. It is sent out u n d er the control of a person prepared for this task in o rd er to make sure that it does n o t ru n about through the cam p and that once it has reached the wilderness it does n o t tu rn back into any inhabited area, because being laden with the sins of the people this goat is a terrible polluting force. It is thought that in the early period the goat w andered around in the wilderness until it expired. Later the priests m ade sure that the goat did no t wand er back into civilization, for they had it led to a cliff and pushed over, plunging it to its death. In this rite the sins are pictured as a burden or weight that is ‫נשא‬, “carried away,” by the goat. Interestingly ‫ נשא‬is often used m etaphorically for “forgive” (cf. 5:1). This goat, which carries these sins away from the camp, is to leave them in an ‫ א ר ץ גזרה‬, “inaccessible area,” believed by the ancients to be the abode of dem ons o r evil spirits. Thus the goat takes these sins to the place of their origin and leaves them there, breaking the power that they had of binding and oppressing the people. 23-25 Aaron now is to remove his special linen robes and leave them at the sanctuary, for they have been infected by holiness (v 4). These directions are very elliptical. A casual reading of the text has Aaron disrobe in the T ent of

242

L e v it ic u s 1 6 : 1 - 3 4

M eeting. Such a practice would have been repulsive to ancient Israel, for the priests were to avoid any exposure of their genitals at the sanctuary (Exod 20:26; Levine, 107). Levine (108) postulates that the high priest is to remove his garm ents in a screened area near the Tent. This interpretation takes ‫ ב א אל‬, which usually m eans “enter,” to m ean here “ap proach.” T here the high priest is to wash him self and p u t on his usual priestly garm ents. He now may p u t on his elegant garm ents, for he has m ade expiation for him self and the Tent. By bathing, the high priest removes some of the holiness that has p en etrated him from being in the Holy o f Holies so that he may function at the altar o f the whole offering w ithout endangering the congregation standing in that area. N ext he is to offer up the two whole offerings, first for him self and then for the people. These whole offerings make fu rth er expiation for him self and the people. At this tim e he is to b u rn the fat o f the purification offering on the altar (cf. 4:8-10, 19). 26 T he person who has sent (‫ ) שלח‬the goat to Azazel has becom e unclean in dealing with an anim al laden with the congregation’s sins. O n retu rn in g to the cam p he is to wash his clothes and bathe him self in water. T he req u irem en t that som eone who has becom e im pure is to bathe before being perm itted back into the cam p is standard procedure (e.g., N um 19:8). This restores this person to ritual purity in o rd er that he may en ter the cam p to be a p art o f the congregation for the rest o f the cerem onies o f this high day. 27-28 T he parts o f the bull and the goat that are n o t b u rn e d on the altar for the purification offerings m ust be disposed o f properly. These parts, i.e .,‫ ע ר ת‬, “the hides,” ‫ב שר‬, “the m eat,” and ‫פר ש‬, “the offal,” are to be b rought outside the cam p and b u rn e d with fire (cf. 4:11-12). T he one who takes them outside m ust wash his clothes and bathe him self in water to becom e ritually clean. Why he m ust do this is n o t im mediately clear since it is argued in chap. 4 that the flesh of the purification is most holy, n o t being defiled by the offerer’s sin. Kiuchi (PuHfication Offrnng, 135-41) suggests that the cleansing is required because the rem ains of the purification offerings symbolize death and that the person who handles them contacts death and thus m ust go through ritual cleansing. Afterwards he may en ter the cam p and participate in the rem aining observances of the day. 29-31 At this p o int decrees are given to place this solem n day in Israel’s calen d ar (cf. chap. 23). The Day o f A tonem ent is to be observed on the tenth day o f the seventh m onth. T he n um ber seven, m ade up of the sacred num bers three plus four, is the nu m ber of com pleteness in ancient Israel. This day, being the m ost solem n day in the year, is placed in the seventh m onth. T he ten th day is chosen because ten is the jo in in g of the key num bers three and seven. Special restrictions are placed on this day. T he people are to ‫ ענ ה את נפש‬, “afflict them selves.” ‫ ענה‬is used in place o f ‫צו ם‬, “fast,” in o rd er to com m unicate that m ore than n o t eating is required. Unfortunately, the full extent o f the affliction is n o t stated. It certainly includes fasting, but probably includes wearing sackcloth, m ourning, and prayer as well (cf. Ps 35:13). In the post-exilic era fasting increased as a sign o f repentance and seeking G od’s mercy (e.g., Ezra 8:21-23), and certain days of the year becam e regular fast days (Neh 9:1; Zech 8:19). Nevertheless, the Day of A tonem ent continued to be the m ost solem n day o f the year. T he M ishnah (m. Yoma 8.1) specifies that “eating, drinking, anointing, p utting on sandals, and m arital intercourse are fo rbidden.” T he great holiness of this day led to its being called ‫ שבת שבתון‬, “a sabbath of solem n rest.” ‫ שבתון‬is com posed o f ‫שבת‬, “sabbath,”

E xp la n a tio n

243

plus the suffix ‫רן‬, m aking it an abstract to designate a special kind of sabbath, one to be observed m ore stringently and m ore zealously (KB, 1312). Levine (109-10) points o u t th at this phraseology has superlative force. T he phrase is translated “a sabbath o f solemn rest” to capture both the com plete rest and the devout, festive worship observed on this day. These standards apply to both the ‫ אזר ח‬, “citizen,” and the ‫ג ר‬, “alien,” living within Israel. T he ordinance for this day is to last as long as there is a people o f Israel. ‫ ח ק ת עולם‬, “a perpetual decree,” is repeated three times in this section (vv 29a, 31b, 34a) to add the fullest weight to the continued observance o f this day. This language underscores the centrality of this day for the covenant people. In Judaism , the Day of A tonem ent has grown in im portance until today it is one of the key practices that bind together the diverse com m unities o f Jews th ro u g hout the world. This standard is repeated in v 31 for emphasis. 30 T he people are cleansed (‫ ) ט ה ר‬from their sins (‫ ) ח טאת‬by the act o f expíation (‫) כ פ ר‬. T he people are both forgiven and pure. Therefore, they may stand with hum ble boldness in G od’s presence. 32 It is explicitly stated that each successor to Aaron who has been anointed (‫ ;משח‬cf. 8:12) and consecrated (‫ ; מ ל א את־ידו‬cf. 8:22, 33) is to carry out the observanee o f the Day of A tonem ent. 33 It is reiterated for em phasis that on each successive Day of A tonem ent expiation is m ade for three areas of the cult—the Holy of Holies (‫ ) מקד ש הקדש‬, the T ent o f M eeting (‫) א ה ל מועד‬, and the altar (‫—) ה מזב ח‬as well as for the priests and ‫ כל״ ע ם ה ק ה ל‬, “all the people o f the congregation.” 34 ‫והיתה־זאת‬, “this is to be,” the opening part of v 34, is like the opening of v 29, forming an inclusio for this section. It reiterates that this is □‫ ה ק ת עול‬, “a perpetual statue” (cf. v 29), and it reiterates the purpose of this day, i.e., to make expiation for all the sins of the Israelites. The second half of the verse is a compliance rep o rt stating that one (from the context the antecedent is taken to be Aaron) did ju st as Yahweh had instructed him through Moses. This note of fulfillm ent accords with this being a rep o rt of the first observance o f the Day of A tonem ent. Explanation

T h e Day o f A to n e m e n t is th e h ig h e st day in th e Jew ish calen d ar. O n this day Jews afflict themselves by abstaining from all earthly pleasures. They deny their bodies as they spur themselves to seek God solemnly for forgiveness of their sins. In early Israel, the high priest officiated on this day. C lothed in regular priestly garb o f linen garm ents that symbolized purity and humility, he first offered for him self a bull as a purification offering. T he bull corresponded to his status as the spiritual head o f the congregation. C arrying a censer with h o t coals, he b rought blood from his purification offering into the Holy of Holies. O nce inside the veil, he p u t incense on the coals to create a cloud of smoke to protect him self from G od’s awesome presence over the cherubim . Inside the Holy of Holies he sprinkled some of the blood on the A tonem ent Slate, and before the A tonem ent Slate he sprinkled blood seven times. H e left the Holy of Holies, came outside, and sacrificed one of the peo p le’s goats as a purification offering. H e took some o f the blood from that offering inside the Holy of Holies and did the same rites as with the blood from his own purification offering. W hen he came outside of

244

L e v it ic u s

16:1-34

the T ent of M eeting, he took some of the blood from both purification offerings, sm eared some on the horns o f the great altar, and sprinkled som e on the altar seven times. In this m a n n e r all the furnishings of the T ent o f M eeting were cleansed from the pollution o f Israel’s sins. Given the reality that hum ans by nature sin continually, pollution of the sanctuary was unavoidable. T herefore, it had to be cleansed yearly by these blood rites on these key sacred objects in o rd e r th at it m ight continue to function efficaciously as the place for the worship of Yahweh. N ext the high priest presented the living goat. He laid both his hands on the goat and confessed over it the sins of the people. Laden with these sins, the goat was sent away into the wilderness by one appointed for this task. T hat p erso n ’s responsibility was to make sure that the goat went away from the cam p and did n o t w ander back into it. In later times the goat was cast over a precipice to make sure th at it died. This goat died in the wilderness, the h au n t o f dem ons and evil spirits. T he purpose of this ritual was to remove the sins from the area where the people lived, to re tu rn them to their source, and to leave them there in o rd er th at they would have no m ore ill effect within the community. This rite completely broke the power o f these sins over the people of God. T he high priest then rem oved his linen garm ents, washed himself, and p u t on his regal priestly garm ents. He proceeded to offer his own whole offering and the p eo p le’s whole offering. Afterwards the fat of the purification offering was b u rn e d on the altar, for it was to be b u rn e d on top o f a whole offering. These whole offerings may be in te rp re te d as offerings o f hom age an d o f praise to Yahweh for providing his people this way to remove all sin and im purity from their midst. Afterwards the rem ains of the two purification offerings were carried outside the cam p and burned. Given the gravity o f this day, n one o f the m eat o f these purification offerings m ight be eaten by the priests. T he rich variety o f rituals p e rfo rm e d on the Day o f A to n em en t h ad a twofold purpose: forgiveness for the covenant people of God from all their sins and freedom from the power o f sin. In Judaism the Day o f A tonem ent continues to be the m ost im portant and solem n day o f the year. Now that sacrifices are no longer offered, Jews observe it by fasting, abstinence, and prayers of penance as they seek God for forgiveness. In the NT Jesus’ death fulfilled the entire in ten t o f the high Day of Atonem ent. In fact, because Jesus was both the perfect high priest and an offering free from blem ish, his death consum m ated the entire OT sacrificial system. T he variety of the OT sacrificial rituals, each in its own way, bears witness to the dim ensions o f Jesu s’ work on the cross. In addition, his death was like that of the paschal lamb, for no n e o f his bones were broken and he died at Passover (Exod 12:46; J o h n 19:14, 36; 1 Cor 5:7; cf. Ps 34:21 [20]). It was, furtherm ore, like the sacrifice Moses m ade to seal the covenant between Yahweh and Israel at Sinai (Exod 24:38), for his death inaugurated a new covenant between God and all who believe on him (cf. 1 Cor 11:23-26; Matt 26:28; H eb 12:24; cf. H eb 7:22; 8:6). Jesus, therefore, is “the m ediator of a new covenant” (H eb 9:15-22; cf. Je r 31:31-34). In the Book o f Hebrews Jesus is the perfect high priest who did n o t n eed to offer any sacrifice for himself. W hereas every year on the Day of A tonem ent the high priest had to offer up a purification offering for his own sins as the first

E x p la n a tio n

245

ritual o f this day, Jesus, being blameless, offered him self to God once for all as the perfect sacrifice for all hum ans (H eb 7:26-28). T hat is, in death Jesus, who knew no sin, becam e a purification offering like those sacrificed on the Day of A tonem ent, for the blood of his sacrifice was sprinkled in the heavenly Holy of Holies (Heb 9:11-12). His sacrifice never has to be repeated. Because his sacrifice was perfect, no m ore are the sacrifices of the Day of A tonem ent required. According to Hebrews, after his death and his ascension Jesus finalized the ritual of ato n em en t in the heavenly sanctuary, one n o t m ade with hands (H eb 9:25-28). T here he lives ever to make intercession for his people. T he atonem ent that Jesus has secured, thus, is n o t tem poral b u t eternal. In Rom 3:25 Paul makes an o th er dram atic com parison between Jesus’ death and a key rite perfo rm ed on the Day of A tonem ent. H e states that “God set forth [Jesus] as the m eans of expiation through faith in his blood . . . ” T he key term here is “m eans o f expiation” or “place o f ato n em en t.” This term refers to the A tonem ent Slate, the slate o f gold over the Ark o f the C ovenant located inside the Holy of Holies. Paul has in m ind that on the Day of A tonem ent it was over this slate and before it that the high priest sprinkled the blood of the purification offerings in o rd er to secure expiation both for him self and for all the people. Now God has p u t forth Jesus as this A tonem ent Slate. W hereas the A tonem ent Slate was h idden deep inside the Holy Place, Jesus died in full public view. This radical change in location of the A tonem ent Slate symbolizes that Jesus’ death achieves expiation for everyone who has faith in him. To express it an o th er way, God has m ade his crucified son the A tonem ent Slate, the boundary between the holy and the sinful, where hum ans may find forgiveness of all their sins and reconciliation with God. This new A tonem ent Slate is readily accessible to anyone who has faith. O ne may approach this place of atonem ent w ithout preparation through ritual purity, fasting, and self-denial. This dram atic shift of the blood rite from inside the Holy o f Holies on the Day of A tonem ent to the cross planted on a hill outside Jerusalem is foundational to the radical shift in the way to God u n d er the new covenant. Jesus him self displaces the tabernacle and its entire sacrificial system, and he creates the new people of God w ithout any barriers of race, social status, o r gender. In m aking this radical change, God has revealed his righteousness both by expiating hum an sin in order that those who believe m ight have a ju st standing before him and by providing redem ption to everyone who has faith in Jesus. In what way does Jesus’ death correlate with the ritual of the goat released to Azazel? First, Jesus him self bore the p eople’s sins as that goat did. He, who knew no sin, becam e sin for all hum ans (2 Cor 5:21; cf. Gal 3:13; H eb 9:28; 1 Pet 2:24). Second, ju st as the goat laden with the p eo p le’s sins had to be led outside the cam p to die in the wilderness, Jesus had to die outside the cam p because he had becom e sin (cf. H eb 13:12; Jo h n 19:17; Matt 21:39; Luke 20:15). Hebrews expresses this thought using a different ritual. Just as the carcasses o f the purification offerings had to be b u rn e d outside the camp, so too Jesus suffered outside the city’s gates (H eb 13:11-12). T h ird , Jesu s’ d escen t in to hell as confessed in the Apostles’ C reed is explicable in light o f the ritual with the scapegoat. Just as the g o at’s d ep a rtu re to the w ilderness was a rite o f riddance, leaving the p eo p le’s sins with Azazel, the prince o f evil, so Jesus took all sin to hell, the center o f sin, to leave it there in o rd er to free hum ans from the bondage o f their sins.

246

L e v it ic u s

16:1-34

These com parisons to the ritual for Azazel are im portant, for they teach that Jesus’ death broke the power of sin to enslave a hum an being. Jesus’ death has thus accom plished the full in ten t of b oth the Day o f Atonem en t an d th e whole sacrificial system. T he global com m unity has gain ed a trem endous spiritual advantage, for all the spiritual m erits achieved by following the rituals o f the ancient Day of A tonem ent are readily available to anyone at any tim e and in any place through belief in Jesus (H eb 7:24-27; cf. 9:23-28; 10:1925). To say it an o th er way, all believers in Jesus have a perfect sacrifice and a blameless high priest as their advocate in the h eart o f the heavenly sanctuary ever ready to make intercession for them (! J o h n 2:1).

V.

Laws on Holy Living

(17:1-26:46)

Bibliography

Baentsch, B. D a s Heiligkeits-G esetz L e v X V II-X X V I: E in e historisch-kritische U n tersu ch u n g . Erfurt: Hugo Güther, 1893. Bettenzoli, G. “Deuteronomium und Heiligkeitsgesetz.” V T 34 (1984) 385-98. Cholewmski, A. H eiligkeitsgesetz u n d D e u tero n o m iu m : E inevergleichende Stu d ie. AnBib 66. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976. Córtese, E. “L’esegesi di H (Lev 17-26).” R B ib lt 29 (1981) 129-46. Delitzsch, F. “Pentateuch-kritische Studien 12: Das Heiligkeitsgesetz.” Z e its c h n fi f u r kirchliche W isse n sc h a ft u n d kirchliche L eben 1 (1881) 617-26. Eerdmans, B. D. A lttesta m en tlic h e S tu d ie n 4: D a s B u c k L e v iticu s. Giesen: Topelmann, 1912. Elliot-Binns, L. E. “Some Problems of the Holiness Code.” Z A W 67 (1955) 26-40. Feucht, C. U n te rsu c h u n g en z u m H eiligkeitsgesetz. Theologische Arbeiten 20. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964. Graf, K. D ie geschichtlichen B u c h e r des A lte n Testam ents: Z w ei historische-kntische U ntersu ch u n g en . Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1866. Horst, L. L e v itic u s X V I I - X X V I u n d H ezekiel: E in B e itra g z u r P en ta teu ch kH tik. Colmar: Eugen Barth, 1881. Kayser, A. D a s vorexilische B u c k der Urgeschichte Israels u n d seine E rw e ite ru n g e n : E in B eitra g z u r P en ta teu ch -kritik. Strassburg: C. F. Schmidt’s Universitats-Buchhandlung, 1874. Kilian, R. L i t e r a r k r i t i s che u n d F o r m g e s c h ic h tlic h e U n te rsu c h u n g des Heiligkeitsgesetzes. BBB 19. Bonn: Peter Hanstein, 1963. Klostermann, A. “Ezechiel und das Heiligkeitsgesetz.” In D er P en ta teu ch : B eitrage z u seinem V erstandnis u n d sein erE n tsteh u n g sg esch ich te. Leipzig: U. Deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1893. 419-47. Knohl, I. “The Priestly Torah Versus the Holiness School: Sabbath and the Festivals.” H U C A 58 (1987) 65-117. Koch, R. ‘Vers une morale de L’AHiance?” S tM o r 6 (1968) 7-58. Küchler, S. D a s H eiligkeitsgesetz L e v 1 7 - 2 6 : E in e litera rkn tisch e U n tersu ch u n g . Kónigsberg: Kümmel, 1929. Morgenstern, J. ‘The Decalogue of the Holiness Code.” H U C A 26 (1955) 1-27. Patón, L. T h e Relation of Lev XX to Lev. XVII-XIX.” H eb ra ica 10 (1894) 111-21.----------- . “The Holiness Code and Ezekiel.” T h e Presbyterian a n d R eform ed R eview 26 (1896) 98-115.-----------. T h e Original Form of Leviticus xvii.‫־‬xix.”/BL 16 (1897) 31-77.----------- . “The Original Form of Leviticus xxi., xxii.” f B L 17 (1898) 149-74. ----------- . “The Original Form of Leviticus xxiii., xxv.”/BL 18 (1899) 35-60. Rabast, K. D a s apodiktische R ech t im D e u tero n o m iu m u n d im H eiligkeitsgesetz. Hermsdorf: Heimatsdienstverlag, 1948. Rad, G. von. S tu d ie s in D e u te ro n o m y . Tr. D. Stalker. SBT 9. Chicago: Regnery, 1953. Reventlow, H. G. D a s H eiligkeitsgesetz: F orm g eschichtlichuntersucht. WMANT 6. Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1961. Sun, Η. T. C. “An Investigation into the Compositional Integrity of the So-called Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26).” Diss., Claremont, 1990. Thiel, W. “Erwágungen zum Alter des Heiligkeitsgesetzes.” Z A W 71 (1969) 40-73. Wagner, V. “Zur Existenz des sogenannten ‘Heiligkeitsgesetzes.’” Z A W 86 (1974) 307-16. Wellhausen, J. D ie C o m position des H e xa te u ch s u n d d er h isto n sc h e n B u c h e r des A lte n T estam ents. Vierte unveranderte Auflage. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1963.---------- . P rolegom ena to the H isto ry o f A n c ie n t Isr a e l (Repr. of Meridian Books Library Edition 1957.) Gloucester, ΜΑ: P. Smith, 1973. Wurster, P. “Zur Charakteristik und Geschichte des Priestercodex und Heiligkeitsgesetzes.” ZAW4 (1884) 112-33. Zimmerli, W. “‘Heiligkeit’ nach dem sogenannten Heiligkeitsgesetz.” VT30 (1980) 493-512. Form ,/Structure/Setting T h e C haracter o f t h e H oliness C o d e

Since the late n in eteen th century, chaps. (17) 18-26 have been considered to be a corpus separate from the rest o f the priestly m aterial. T he ethical concerns

248

L e v it ic u s

17:1-26:46

o f these chapters form ulated in a vigorous style stand ou t against the preceding cultic regulations cast in a stilted, stereotyped style. Unlike the preceding regulations, these m oral laws are m otivated by strong exhortations to do what Yahweh has com m anded. T he key exhortation is “You shall be holy, for I, Yahweh your God, am holy” (see Excursus at 19:2). This exhortation expresses the goal o f Yahweh’s covenant with Israel; i.e., Israel is to be a holy people distinct from all o th er nations (Exod 19:5). T he laws and instructions in this code lead Israel to express this holiness in personal relationships and through integrity in cultic m atters. Frequently the laws in this corpus are distinctively substantiated by Yahweh’s self-introduction. T he proclam ation is usually form ulated ‫ אני יהרה‬, “I am Yahweh” (18:5, 6, 21; 19:12, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30, 32, 37; 20:8, 24; 21:12, 15, 23; 22:2, 3, 8, 9, 16, 30, 31, 32, 33; 25:38; 26:2,13, 45), or ‫ אני יהרה אלהיכם‬, “I am Yahweh, your G od” (18:2, 4, 30; 19:3, 4, 10, 25, 31, 34, 36; 20:7; 23:22, 43; 24:22; 25:17, 55; 26:1, 44). A nother m arked feature o f this code is that m ost o f the laws are form ulated categorically. Some label this form ulation apodictic (cf. A. Alt, “T he O rigins o f Israelite Law,” in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, tr. R. A. Wilson [G arden City: Doubleday, 1968] 101-71; G. Liedke, Gestalt und Bezeichnung alttestamentlicher Rechtssatze: Eine formgeschichtlich-terminologische Studie, WMANT 39 [Neukirchen-Vluyn: N eukirchener, 1971]). W hen a penalty is stated, it is usually the death penalty or the cut-off penalty (e.g., chap. 20). Because o f these characteristics, in 1877 Klosterm ann nam ed this corpus Das Heiligkeitsgesetz, “the Holiness C ode.” This nam e has continued to refer to these chapters in Leviticus. Earlier scholars identified the m aterial o f this code by its distinct vocabulary: ‫ כי קדש אני יהרה‬, “because I, Yahweh, am holy,” 19:2; 20:26; 21:8; similar forms 11:44, 45; 20:8; 21:15, 23; 22:9,16, 32; ‫איש איש‬, “everyone,” 17:3, 8, 10, 13; 18:6; 20:2, 9; 22:4, 18; 24:15; also 15:2; Num 5:12; 9:10; ‫ונתתי אני‬, T shall give,” 17:10; 20:3, 5 (‫שמתי‬, “I shall put”), 6; 26:17; ‫הכרתי‬, “I shall cut off,” 17:10; 20:3, 5, 6 (only first person form of ;(‫הכרת‬ ‫ הלך בחקות‬, “walk in statutes,” 18:3; 20:23; 26:3 (Ezekiel, e.g., 5:6, 7; 11:20); ‫ חקתי ומשפטי‬, “my statutes and my laws,” 18:4 (reversed), 5, 26; 19:37; 20:22; 25:18; 26:15, 43 (reversed); ‫ ועשה‬. . . ‫שמר‬, “observe . . . and do,” 18:4; 19:37; 20:8, 22; 22:31; 25:18; 26:3 (often in Deuteronomy, e.g., 4:6; 16:12; 26:16); ‫שאר‬, “flesh, close relative,” 18:12, 13, 17 (fern); 20:19; 21:2; ‫שאר בשרו‬, “his close relative,” (lit.) “flesh of his flesh,” 18:6; 25:49; ‫זמה‬, “a lewd act,” 18:17; 19:29; 20:14 (2x; often in Ezekiel, e.g., 16:27, 43, 58; 23:21, 27, 29, 35, 44, 48 [2x], 49); ‫עמית‬, “associate,” 18:20; 19:11, 15, 17; 24:19; 25:14 (2x), 15, 17; also 5:21(6:2 [2x]) and Zech 13:7; ‫שבתי‬, “my Sabbaths,” 19:3, 30; 26:2 (also Ezekiel, e.g., 20:12, 13, 16, 20, 21, 24; 22:8, 26);

Form/Structure/Setting

249

‫אלילים‬, “idols,” 19:4; 26:1 only here in Pentateuch and several times in Isaiah; ‫ויראת אלהיך‬, “and fear your God,” 19:14, 32; 25:17, 36, 43; ‫)דמים בם( דמיו בו‬, “his blood is on him,” 20:9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 27 (also Ezek 18:13; 33:5). (This list is adapted from the list found in S. R. Driver, A n 7th ed. [Edinburgh: Clark, 1898] 49-50.)

In tro d u ctio n to the L iteratu re

o f the OT,

Later scholars challenged the validity o f identifying this code by its distinctive vocabulary, pointing o u t that m any o f these term s and phrases occur in o th er blocks o f m aterial in the OT, such as D euteronom y’s use o f ‫ ועשה‬. . . ‫ שמר‬, “observe and d o .” As a result, contem porary scholars do n o t place m uch weight on vocabulary in their reconstruction o f the growth and developm ent o f the Holi‫־‬ ness Code; nevertheless, they continue to identify the form ulae o f Yahweh’s self-introduction with the Holiness Code. In place o f vocabulary, they employ form analysis and tradition history in determ ining the nature, developm ent, and ex ten t o f the Holiness Code. T he Holiness Code is ordinarily taken to include chaps. 17-26. A survey of the con ten t and arrangem ent o f this m aterial is helpful for understanding the history o f scholarship in reference to these chapters. A lthough an introduction to a new corpus is lacking at 17:1, the following ch ap ters stand off from the rest of Leviticus, prim arily being fram ed by the sum m ary statem ent and com pliance rep o rt at 16:34 and the subscript at 26:46. Incidentally there is a secondary break at21:24, since th at verse is a com pliance report. This m aterial on holy living functions as a counterbalance to the laws on ritual purity (chaps. 11-15), with the liturgy for the Day of A tonem ent (chap. 16) functioning as a pivot. Chaps. 11-15 describe the types and causes o f uncleanness th at are rem oved from the entire nation on the Day of A tonem ent, and chaps. 17-26 set forth the ethical and cubic standards th at a forgiven people m ust follow. T he m aterial in chaps. 17-26 has been collected in blocks, but there is no definitively discoverable arrangem ent o f these blocks (e.g., cf. Eissfeldt, OT: An Introduction, tr. P. R. Ackroyd [New York: H arp er and Row, 1965] 234). This material has b e e n assem bled p rim arily by co m m o n th em es, key w ords, an d association o f ideas. A brief look at the arrangem ent of the m aterial in this section will be helpful. Chaps. 18-20 form the core o f this corpus. In fact, they are grouped in an ABA' pattern: A Laws governing sexual relationships (chap. 18) B A variety of ethical and cultic laws (chap. 19) A' Laws governing sexual relationship with penalty (chap. 20) Chap. 19 is the center of this trilogy. The them e of this speech is the opening exhortation to be holy (v 2). T he laws found in this speech are a m ixture o f m oral commands and cultic regulations. This strongly indicates that while the author of this code stressed moral laws far m ore than are found in other portions o f the priestly m aterial, he did n o t consider that the observance of m oral laws carried greater value than the observance o f cultic laws in order for Israel to be a people holy to

250

L e v it ic u s

17:1-26:46

h e r God. T he co ntent o f this speech, however, is very fragm ented, being held together by the recurring use o f the form ula of Yahweh’s self-introduction. Chaps. 18 and 20 govern sexual relationships and prohibit sorcery. These two speeches are im passioned by powerful parenetic m aterial (18:2-6, 25-30; 20:7-8, 22-26). Chaps. 21-22 provide special laws for the priests and for sacrifices. Chap. 21 sets forth the standard for the purity o f the priesthood in essential m atters such as m arriage an d bodily integrity. Chap. 22 adds m aterial on the integrity o f sacrificial m aterial and the handling o f sacrifices. S urrounding chaps. 18-22 are instructions on worship. Chap. 17 legislates that all sacrifices be m ade at an official altar and that no blood be consum ed. T he central issue th en for the laws o f chap. 17 is integrity in handling an anim al’s blood. Chaps. 23 + 25 regulate the times for worship. Chap. 23, a calendrical text, opens with a law on observance of the sabbath and then regulates the three annual pilgrim festivals, nam ely the Feast o f Passover and U nleavened Bread, the Feast o f Weeks, and the Feast of Booths. It also makes the first day o f the seventh m o n th a day o f rest, and it sets the date for the Day o f A tonem ent. Chap. 25 regulates multiple-year cycles, i.e., the seven-year sabbatical cycle and the fiftyyear cycle o r the Year o f Jubilee. Integrated into the observance o f Jubilee are the laws on redem ption o f a patrim ony and a d eb to r slave. These high festive days an d special years are to be observed in o rd er to exalt the worship o f Yahweh over m aterial concerns. Because Yahweh is a holy God, he dem ands that sacred times be proclaim ed for com m unity worship and celebration. Chap. 24, which itself has two distinct sections, is wedged between these two speeches. T he reason for its location is far from obvious. T he first section regulates the quality of the oil for the m enorah in the Holy Place (vv 1-4) and the bread of the Presence for the table (vv 5-9). These regulations have some tie with chaps. 23 and 25, for they are calendrical in nature in th at they govern periodic rituals regarding worship at the Temple. T he second section (vv 10-23) reports a case o f blasphem y to which laws treating blasphem y and injury to persons and animals have been appended. T he attaching o f laws to an incident is a fam iliar p attern in the P entateuch (cf. chap. 10). Why this particular incident was drawn to or set in this context rem ains an enigm a. This section concludes with the blessings and curses in chap. 26. This chapter is a fitting en d b oth to this section and to this book. It places all o f the m aterial on cultic purity and ethical integrity within the context o f the covenant. In o th er words, all o f Leviticus is to be understood as having its authority and significance within the context o f the covenant. N ot only does this speech offer blessings and curses; it also offers instructions for the possibilities of restoration to the com m unity should it ever en ter exile (vv 40-45). It stands as an en during word o f hope to Israel. T he position o f chap. 17 in relationship to the Holiness Code has been debated since the identification o f the Holiness Code. Since this speech deals solely with sacrifices, it is m ore in accord with the preceding legislation than with the following m aterial, which treats prim arily ethical and purity issues. T hus the Holiness Code lacks a heading that identifies the following m aterial as constituting a special corpus like th at found at D eut 12:1. Because of its concern with sacrifices and its location, a few scholars group it with chap. 16. This location fails, for a com pliance rep o rt at the end o f chap. 16 definitively sets it off from the following. Most critical

Form/Structure/Setting

251

scholars, thus, have defended chap. 17 as a p art o f the Holiness Code. They note th at language in this speech ties it to the Holiness Code: the use o f the divine first person (vv 10-12, 14; cf. 26:3, 6, 17), the form ula ‫ איש איש מבית ישראל‬, “any Isra e lite ” (vv 3, 8, 10, 13), th e “c u t-o ff’ penalty in th e divine first p erso n (v 10; cf. vv 4, 9,14; 20:5), and the penalty ‫ נשא עונו‬, “he is held responsible” (v 16; cf. B ertholet, 58; Baentsch, 388). In accord with the Holiness Code is the desire to remove all form s of pagan practices (vv 5, 7; cf. 20:5, 6; Porter, 138). Nevertheless, it needs to be stated that several term s in this speech reflect the style of the priestly writer: ‫ א ה ל מועד‬, “the Tent o f M eeting” (vv 4, 5, 6, 9), the concern about eating blood (vv 10-14), ‫ והקטיר ה חלב‬, “and he is to smoke the fat” (v 6), ‫ ל רי ח ניחח ליהוה‬, “a soothing arom a to Yahweh” (v 6), and ‫ ק ר בן‬, “offering, oblatio n ” (v 4). O ne way to account for this language is the position that chap. 17 was redacted by a priestly editor. Baentsch (388), e.g., judges it to be an old section of the law th at has been thoroughly edited in the thought o f the priestly writers. Conversely, the motivations for the law against eating blood in vv 11-12 and the phrase ‫ מזבח יהוה‬, “the altar o f Yahweh” (v 6), are uncharacteristic o f the priestly material. Some who place chap. 17 as p art o f the Holiness Code explain its lead position by the practice o f ancient codes, which p u t cultic laws at the beginning of legal m aterial: Exod 20:24-26 for the book o f the covenant, D eut 12 for D eut 1228; Ezek 40-42 for Ezek 40-48; Exod 25-31 for the priestly m aterial (Bertholet, 58; Eissfeldt, OT: A n Introduction, 233). In this same vein Kilian (Literarkritische, 178-79) argued th at chap. 17 was placed at the head o f the Holiness Code by a priestly redactor who used the covenant code and D euteronom y as a pattern. This redactor did n o t include a special heading for this block o f m aterial because he was incorporating it into the priesdy m aterial. T he consensus o f scholars, therefore, assigns chap. 17 to the Holiness Code. H istory of Research o n the H oliness C ode

T he identification of Lev 18-23, 25-26 as an in d ep en d e n t corpus began in 1866 with Graf. H e separated chaps. 18-26 from 1-16 on the basis of unique expressions and distinctive form ulae (Graf, Die geschichtlichen Bucher, 75). Given the linguistic ties between this corpus and Ezekiel, G raf postulated that Ezekiel was its author. In 1874 Kayser accepted G ra fs position and w ent on to provide a fuller linguistic characterization o f the Holiness Code (Sun, “Investigation,” 3). H e assigned chap. 17 to the corpus (Sun, 3). N ext K losterm ann recognized the existence o f this code and labeled it Heiligkeitsgesetz, “the holiness code.” H e also investigated its ties with Ezekiel, concluding th at instead o f being its author, Ezekiel h ad im m ersed him self in this m aterial (cf. Sun, 4). Klosterm ann ju d g ed th at the present corpus contains only fragm ents o f an original legal collection, since m aterial th at originally belonged to it, like Exod 12:12b; 29:38-46; Lev 7:15ff; 11:43-45, appears elsewhere (“Ezechiel,” 378). In 1876, W ellhausen w ent on to claim the literary independence of the Holiness Code from the priestly m aterial because of its distinctive characteristics. H e held th at older laws that existed independendy were collected into an independ en t corpus H; th en a priestly redaction incorporated the Holiness Code into the priestly narrative by m erging texts from both sources and m aking additions

252

L e v it ic u s

17:1-26:46

to the Holiness Code from the viewpoint of the priesdy school (Sun, “Investigation,” 8). Sun points o u t that this construct would be followed for several decades by scholars who supported the existence o f the Holiness Code. In several articles published between 1894 and 1899, Patón sought to identify the various strata o f this corpus. H e identified three prim ary strata: the original h o lin ess m ateria l, p re-p riestly p a re n e tic m a te ria l th a t a c c e p te d th e deuteronom istic program s o f centralization, and the work o f a priesdy redactor who im proved the m eaning with glosses and the addition o f cultic m aterial to bring the Holiness Code into harm ony with the position o f the priesdy school (Sun, “Investigation,” 9). B ertholet (1901) accepted the prevailing critical position and un d erto o k the identification o f the various redactions m ore closely (Sun, “Investigation,” 9-10). H e found twelve in d ep en d en t sections which the redactor o f the H oliness Code b ro u g h t together and filled o ut with a variety o f o th er m aterial. In 1903, Baentsch (Leviticus, 387-88), on the o th e r hand, uncovered th ree in d e p e n d e n t strata, nam ely chaps. 18-20 + 23-25; 21-22; 17. These strata were assem bled by the com pilers o f chap. 26 into the Holiness Code. At the tim e this corpus was inserted into the priestly m aterial, some o th er fragm ents were added. At this time an attack on the in d ep en d en t existence of the Holiness Code came from Eerdm ans (1912); he founded his opposition on his inability to find any basic stru ctu re th at held all the m aterial to g eth er (Sun, “Investigation,” 11). F urtherm ore, he observed th at the call to holiness is n o t lim ited to this corpus, being found in several o th er OT texts, such as 11:44-45; Exod 19:6; 22:30(31); D eut 7:6; 14:2, 21; 26:19; 28:9. H e pointed out, in addition, that the vocabulary distinct to this corpus also occurs in o th er places o f the OT; therefore, the rem aining term s an d phrases that are distinctive to this corpus are far from sufficient to prove th a t this is an in d e p e n d e n t d o c u m e n t (Sun, 12). K üchler su p p o rted E erdm ans’ position with a historical evaluation o f the m aterial (Sun, 12-13). H e dated m ost o f this m aterial to the early pre-exilic era. Scholars have, for the m ost part, rem ained u n p ersuaded by the argum ents of Eerdm ans and Küchler. Sun (“Investigation,” 15) points ou t that at this p o in t in the history o f research in the Holiness Code, the approach taken to understanding this corpus shifted dramatically as scholars began to apply to it the tools o f form criticism and traditiohistorical criticism. T he initial effort was published by von Rad in his m onograph Studies on Deuteronomy (1947 [G erm an]; 1953 [Eng ed.]). H e devoted a chapter to the study o f the Holiness Code because, like Deuteronom y, it contains a series o f pareneses in the context o f sermons. In his analysis this corpus in Leviticus differs from D euteronom y on two accounts (Studies, 25-26). First, the instructio n s are a d d re sse d now to th e p riests, now to th e com m unity, w hile in D euteronom y the serm ons are for the instruction of the community. Second, the serm ons in the Holiness Code are addresses o f God, n o t serm ons from Moses. T h at is, im personal laws have been set in divine serm ons. This style is accomplished prim arily by introductory form ulae that identify Yahweh as the speaker and by the repeated use o f various form s of the form ula “I am Yahweh.” T he parenetic m aterial had its hom e in these serm ons. For a setting, von Rad sug‫־‬ gested a com m unity g athering o f a p o p u lar n atu re for instruction (31). H e concluded th at the bulk o f the Holiness Code is teaching based on a variety of old laws in parenetic form (35), while conceding th at it is n o t easy to account for

Form/Structure/Setting

25S

this m aterial being p u t into Yahweh speeches. Sun (16) perceived that von Rad had shifted the approach to this corpus away from literary issues to an investigation into the growth and developm ent o f the various sections. Kornfeld (1952) studied the Holiness Code by focusing on the sexual laws in chaps. 18 and 20. He accepted the established param eters o f this code and argued th at it had a unified and coherent structure (Sun, “Investigation,” 17). H e dated this d o cum ent to the late m onarchy at the time o f the deuteronom ist (Sun, 12). In an article in ZAW 67 (1955) 26-40, L. E. Elliot-Binns cautiously set ou t the tentative conclusions o f his work on the Holiness Code. H e reasoned that the Holiness Code was a written docum ent consisting o f several sections assembled over many years. T he m aterial from this group reaches beyond Lev 17-26. In his ju d g m en t, its com pilation took place earlier than th at o f D euteronom y, with which there is no contact, and later than th at o f Ezekiel, with which there is a definite relationship. H e speculated that the Holiness Code was assembled by m em bers o f the Jerusalem Temple. In 1961 Reventlow published an extensive form-critical study of this code. His study is very helpful for understanding the interplay between this corpus and its setting. H e views the serm ons to be for the oral instruction and exhortation of the laity assembled at a covenant renewal ceremony. H e identified the ground layer o f this code to be the apodictic laws found in chaps. 17-20 and the nucleus o f th at layer to be the Decalogue, which can be recovered in chap. 19. These laws were drawn from a large reservoir o f apodictic laws (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 162). Over tim e additional m aterial from this reservoir becam e attached to the nucleus by th o u g h t and word associations and by the n eed o f the m om ent. T he blessings and curses of Lev 26 also belong to the ground layer. N ext the rich instructional m aterial, which lends support to the apodictic laws, was added (163). This step included chap. 17 and the cultic m aterial in chaps. 21-25. T he last stage in the growth process was the inclusion o f hom iletic m aterial, which is identifiable by the use o f direct address. This hom iletic m aterial took a variety o f shapes, ineluding parénesis and theologically reflective material. For Reventlow, the setting in which this corpus came together was the covenant festival, which reached all the way back to Israel assembled at M ount Sinai. In this cultic setting, the m aterial grew ou t of the dynamic interplay between the p reach er and the audience. O lder m aterial, like the Decalogue in chap. 19 and the laws in chap. 17, which came from the wilderness tradition, was updated with supplem ents. But o th er m aterial, like the laws o f chaps. 23 and 25, had its hom e in Canaan am ong a settled population. T he same is true for the content o f the majority o f the blessings and curses in chap. 26. As a result o f this growth process, the older desert m aterial now stands in creative tension with new er m aterial applicable to a settled people. This tension belongs to the hom iletic design of the sermons. W hen the congregation heard these serm ons, contem porary Israel was led back to Sinai as grounds for heeding the call to obedience in the present. Reventlow postulated that the preacher who delivered these serm ons had this role as an official cultic preacher and was viewed as Moses’ successor. According to this reconstruction, this code was n o t the product o f a literary process; rath er it grew o u t of a repetitive cultic celebration. T he final form of this code came together at the covenant festival, which in the Kingdom period had its final hom e at Jerusalem .

254

L e v it ic u s

17:1-26:46

A significant contribution o f Reventlow’s study is its focus on the rhetorical design of this material. It takes seriously the assertion that this m aterial consists o f ancient speeches that were delivered for the instruction of the congregation. Sun (“Investigation,” 20), however, perceived that Reventlow’s study is lim ited because it treats the various subunits o f the Holiness Code, n o t the code as a self‫־‬ existing corpus. Using literary criticism, Kilian (1963) undertook the difficult task o f identifying the various literary layers m aking up the Holiness Code. H e found that there were two m ajor redactions. T he first one produced the proto-H oliness Code. This redactor used a variety o f source m aterial, expanded it, and added com m ents. This earlier code consists o f portions o f 18-22, 25 (Literarkritische, 164): Lev 18:6-23 (save for small additions in vv 7, 9, 11) Lev 19:5-8a, 11-18, 26-28, 30 Lev 20:2a/?ab, 3a, 7, 8, 9a, 10-21, 27 Lev 21:lb/?-8, 10a, 11, 12a, 13-15, 17ba, 18-20, 21a, 22a, 23a/?b Lev 22:2a/?b, 3a, 4a, 5, 6b, 7-10,11a, 12-16, 18ba, 19(a?), 20-25, 27-32 Lev 25:2b, 3, 4a, 5a, 6f, 14, 17 (only part), 25a, 35a, 36f, 39, 40a, 43, 44, 47, 53 This redactor was responsible for the form o f the laws, the em ploym ent o f the sho rter form ula o f Yahweh’s self-introduction, and ordinances with ‫ ח ל ל‬, “profan e” (Kilian, 164-65). T he punishm ent stipulated in the laws falls in the realm o f the cult, n o t in the realm of the civil courts (166). This redactor, however, did n o t do any historical reminiscing. T he older m aterial was organized into two parts: the m oral (chaps. 18-20) and the cultic (chaps. 21-22, 25; Literarkntische, 167-68). As for the date o f this m aterial, it was com piled after Deuteronom y, since it assum es th e c e n tra liz a tio n o f th e cu lt a n d evidences a fam iliarity w ith th e deuteronom istic preaching, and before the fall of Jerusalem (169). Afterwards an o th er redactor took over this work and added several pieces plus m uch o f chaps. 23-24 and chap. 26 to m ake it a corpus: Lev 18:2b-4, 24, 30 Lev 19:2a/?-4, 9f, 23-25, 31, 33-36 Lev 23:10a/?-lla, 12a, 14a(?), 15-17, 18aa , 19b, 20a, 22, 39a/?, 40, 42, 43 Lev 24:16aa, 16b, 17,18a, 18b, 19, 20a, 20b, 21, 22 Lev 25:2a/?, 17 (part), 18-22, 38, 42, 46ba, 55 Lev 26:If, 3-9, 11-13, 15, 16a, 17, 19f, 22a, 25a, 26, 29-33, 36, 37a, 39, 40aa, 42, 45 P art o f this m aterial was an expansion of the legal m aterial. Drawing on old material, the redactor supplem ented the old code with m aterial such as the calendar an d the principle o f restitution (Literarkitische, 169-70). H e also expanded the p aren etic m aterial (170). In ad d itio n , he p re fe rre d th e lo n g er fo rm u la o f Yahweh’s self-introduction and used history for motivation. Kilian dated this seco nd redaction to the exilic period on the bases of Aramaisms, e.g .,‫ אז ר ח‬, “citizen,” and its reliance on Ezekiel (171-72). This redactor had the great hope that the holy people o f God would be recreated as in their initial creation in the deliveranee from Egypt (173-74). Kilian concluded that Ezekiel was influenced by the earlier code and that, in turn, Ezekiel influenced the final redactions of the Holiness Code. Given the ties between this redaction and Ezekiel, he conjectured

Form/Structure/Setting

255

th at this redactor belonged to Ezekiel’s circle (185). Later this corpus received some additions and editorial changes by priestly writers in o rd er that this material could be incorporated into the priestly code (174-76). O ne of these priestly redactors inserted chap. 17 into its position at the head o f the corpus (176-79). His work accounted for the absence of an introduction to the Holiness Code, for he constructed chap. 17 in order to integrate this code into the priestly work. In S un’s ju d g m en t (“Investigation,” 25), the way in which Kilian has reconstructed the origin and the developm ent of the Holiness Code provides the grounds for accepting it as a self-standing corpus. T he big question, as Sun points out, is w hether these results can be substantiated. In 1964 Feucht prom oted the in d ep en d en t existence of the Holiness Code. It was com posed, in his judgm ent, out of two collections (Sun, “Investigation,” 25). The first is chaps. 18-22,23:9-22 (with N um 15:37-41), which came into existence before the early stages of D euteronom y in the early seventh century in Ju d ah (O. Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament, tr. J. Sturdy [Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977] 114). T he second collection is chaps. 25-26; it postdates Deuteronom y, for it shows deuteronom ic influence. In a massive com m entary on Leviticus published in 1966, Elliger opened up a new dim ension to the discussion o f the origin of the Holiness Code by denying th at it ever had an in d ep en d en t existence (16). H e concluded that this m aterial was grafted into the priestly m aterial in two stages, each of which was supplem ented independently. T here are thus four identifiable layers in Lev 17-26. In the first stage a person collected material, some of which reached back before the monarchy. He did no t edit any of that material; instead he placed his contribution at the beginning and the end o f the blocks o f m aterial that he received. H e loved the longer divine self-introductory form ula, being very conscious that Israel lived by the kingly favor o f Yahweh and his fatherly blessings (16). At the c en ter o f his theological outlook is the interaction betw een Yahweh and his people as expressed in the com m and “Be you holy because I, Yahweh your God, am holy” (19:2). This old collection began with m uch o f chap. 25 and contained m 2yor portions o f 17-19 + 26. N ext the editor o f this first layer relocated chap. 25 to the last position, added com m ents, and inserted material into what he received; he also added portions of 2 1 :1 1 5 ‫ ־־‬and chap. 20 (17-18). T he reason that he added the laws with penalty (chap. 20) was to underscore the seriousness o f the call to holiness. W ith the sam e in te n t he p re fe rre d th e sh o rter fo rm u la of Yahweh’s self-introduction. This editor was concerned that the law be observed n o t only by the com m unity but by each individual as well. In Elliger’s analysis, the third h an d did m ajor work in expanding the subjects addressed by this section o f the legislation (18-19). H e placed chap. 20 before chap. 21 in ord er to incorporate o th er m aterial concerning the cult and the priests, e.g., 21:16-24; 22:17-22, 25b, and the ground form of chap. 23. He m ight have been responsible for placing chap. 17 at the head of this law code. T he m aterial he found he left intact, although he m ade some rearrangem ents. H e added the com pliance reports at 21:24 and 23:44. Elliger also assigned to him the addition of 21:9 and 20:27. Finally the work of this h an d was supplem ented by that of an o th er redactor who worked heavily in chaps. 22-24. H e was basically d ep en d en t on the preceding redactor for his theological oudook and literary style. Elliger (22) noted that some o th er pieces becam e attached to this legal corpus over time. In summary, all of

256

L e v it ic u s

17:1-26:46

these redactional efforts identified by Elliger were to supplem ent the priestly material; i.e., they were n o t undertaken to produce and augm ent an in d ep en d en t code (Sun, “Investigation,” 28-29). In 1969 Thiel en tered the debate with a detailed article published in ZAW 71 (1969) 40-73. Starting with the assum ption o f the existence o f the Holiness Code, he concluded th at m uch of the m aterial in the Holiness Code contains older elem ents o f a variety o f genres, b u t the literary form o f th at m aterial is no longer discernible. Thiel postulated that this corpus w ent through a priestly revision in which it was stylized as Yahweh speeches. This revision was m arked by the divine self-introduction form ulae and parenetic m aterial. Later it was redacted by the priestly school when it becam e incorporated into the priestly m aterial. To this redaction belong the elem ents cast in priestly language and set at M ount Sinai. T he Holiness Code reached its final form during the exile. In his ju d g m en t, the theology and term inology are so m uch like those o f D euteronom y that he located the origin o f this code in the same circle, i.e., the preaching o f the Levites. As far as its date, it came about later than Deuteronom y, as the priestly revisions attest. W ondering about the in d ep en d e n t existence of the H oliness Code because of the fragm ented sources identified in earlier studies, W agner (1974) investigated w hether Lev 17-26 is p art o f a larger section. If it is, the existence o f “a Holiness C ode” fades away (ZAW86 [1974] 308). From his study he concludes th at Lev 11-22 is a unit, which treats im purity (3 1 2 1 3 ‫) ־‬: A. Impurity of people (chaps. 11-20) 1. Reparable impurity (chaps. 11-15) 2. Irreparable impurity (chaps. 17-20) B. Impurity of persons and things taking part in the cult (chaps. 21-22) H e w ent on to argue that Lev (17) 18-26 is p art of the larger u n it o f Exod 25-Lev 26. T herefore, this corpus, being p art o f the fram ework o f a larger unit, had no in d e p e n d e n t life (ZAW 86 [1974] 315). Z im m erli (V T 30 [1980] 501) was unpersuaded by W agner’s structural argum ent since the form ula o f Yahweh’s selfidentification is absent from Lev 11-16. Sun, moreover, has correctly argued that W agner’s stru ctu ral arg u m en t was in ad eq u ate to substantiate his conclusion (“Investigation,” 34). In 1976 Cholewiriski published a detailed com parative study of the Holiness C ode an d D eut 1 2 2 6 ‫ ־‬. Before doing the com parative work, he u n d e rto o k a thorough investigation of the redactional history o f the H oliness Code. From his study he d eterm in ed that the core o f the Holiness Code was the p roduct o f five redactional efforts. H e assigned each o f these a n u m b er preceded by the letter H. T he core m aterial for each redaction is as follows: H I: 17:3-9; H2: 18:6-23; 19:11-18, 26-28, 30, 32; H3: m uch o f chaps. 20-22; H4: 23:4-8, 23-25, 33-38; H5: m uch o f chap. 25 (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 132-35). A lthough these various sections came from groups who belonged to the same spiritual milieu, there is no literary unity am ong these pieces (135). Each of these efforts thus produced a certain body o f m aterial, ra th e r than each one adding a strata that ran th ro u g h o u t the existing corpus. While H3 and H 4 were com posed for inclusion in the priestly work, H I + H2 + H5 may have been collected and circulated as a pam phlet. According to Cholewihski’s interp retatio n , this code cam e ab o u t m ore like the growth o f a snowball than by additions and changes m ade to a basic core.

Form/Structure/Setting

257

T he redactional work of a group of priests, which Cholewiriski identified with the label HG, arranged these docum ents into th eir present uniform ity and gave them a characteristic im print around a central them e (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 135, 337). These redactors were m em bers of a priestly wing of the deuteronom istic reform ers who had gone into exile and worked in Babylon (344). This identification allowed Cholewiiiski to account for the m ixture o f priesdy and deuteronom istic term inology in the final corpus. T he docum ent com piled by HG received five small additions from various sources with the same essential theological and cultic oudook. Finally there was a late priestly redactor who m ade some touches in 17:19 ,1 5-16; 18:26b; 19:2a, 20-22; 21:22 and added chap. 24 (140-41). According to Cholewiiiski, these various redactors belonged to the priestly circles, and they did th eir work after the groundw ork o f the priestly texts had been com pleted. Cholewiriski, therefore, obviously rejected the view that the Holiness Code went th ro u g h a m ajor priestly redaction. R ather he held th a t it was com posed by m em bers o f the priesthood who were m em bers o f the deuteronom istic circle and who knew the priestly m aterial. In his ju d g m en t (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 334-38), they jo in e d th eir m aterial to the priestly work in o rd er to change various theological positions o f the older priestly school. E.g., in chap. 25 this code challenged the priestly view th at the land was the unconditional possession o f Israel with the dogm a th at Yahweh was the owner o f the land (334). This group, furtherm ore, attacked the priesdy belief that the covenant was indissoluble and n o t d ep e n d en t on hum an effort with the ten et that Israel’s obedience is essential to the continuation o f the covenant (26:9-12; Heiligkeitsgesetz, 335). Because the HG redactors were m em bers o f the deuteronom istic circle, there are m any characteristics o f the deuteronom istic circle in this corpus. They took the deuteronom istic legal corpus as a m odel for assembling these docum ents into the Holiness Code. These redactors were in agreem ent with many o f the tenets o f the deuteronom istic m ovem ent; nevertheless, they sought to correct prescriptions co n sid ered too radical o r inad eq u ately g ro u n d e d from a theological perspective. T he prim ary exam ple o f disagreem ent with the deuteronom istic reform was their rejection o f its perm ission o f profane slaughter (D eut 12:13-15, 20-28; Lev 17:1-9). In addition, the Holiness Code reintroduced the Feast o f U nleavened Bread as a self-standing feast and reinstated the sacral character of the seventh year. T he holiness school sought to fill gaps in the deuteronom istic laws; e.g., they specified the punishm ent for certain offenses (chap. 20), included a list o f forbidden sexual relationships (18:6-23), and gave additional laws regarding the priests (chaps. 21-22). Sometim es these redactors o f the Holiness Code wished to address social problem s differently than does D euteronom y. This is clearly evident in the social problem s addressed by chap. 25 in contrast to their treatm en t in D eut 15:1-18. So the Holiness Code both supplem ented and modified the legislation o f D euteronom y. It is for these reasons th at Cholewiriski located the roots o f the m ajor redactional effort in the deuteronom istic reform . Cholewiriski’s results, therefore, agree with Elliger’s that this corpus was com piled as an ad dendum to the basic priestly m aterial and thus did n o t have a life o f its own (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 138-39). In a detailed article in HUCA 58 (1987) 65-117, Knohl published some o f the results o f his studies in the Holiness Code. His thesis is t$ at Lev 17-26 is a late addition to the priestly m aterial and th at m aterial from this source is found in

258

L e v it ic u s

17:1-26:46

m ore places o f the Pentateuch than has been believed (65). In his ju d g m en t, it was the work of the “holiness school,” which labored after both the priestly school and the deuteronom istic school. Both the theological outlook and the understanding o f the liturgy o f the holiness school differed m arkedly from those o f the older priesdy school. An exam ple o f the difference between these groups, in the ju d g m en t o f Knohl, concerns the understanding o f the festivals and the Sabbath (66). T he priestly school taught that the festivals were occasions to offer sacrifices in obedience to the divine com m and, bu t the Sabbath was n o t accorded m uch significance. By contrast, the holiness school treated the festivals as joyful occasions c e le b ra tin g th e p ro d u c e o f th e fields a n d as tim es o f h isto rical rem em brance. This school raised the Sabbath to a central place by requiring that it be observed as a day of com plete rest (19:3; 23:3; 26:2). An exam ple o f o th er m aterial that Knohl assigned to the “holiness school” indicates the far-reaching dim ensions o f his theory. H e finds the perspective o f the holiness school in reference to the Sabbath in several o th er texts, such as Exod 31:12-17 and 35:1-3 (73-74). Knohl claim ed that this school edited and arranged the m aterial regarding the tabernacle and the golden calf in o rd e r to exalt the Sabbath by placing its sanctity on the same level as that o f the sanctuary (74). T heir point of view is clearly stated in Lev 19:30 and 26:2, w here categorical com m ands on keeping the Sabbath and revering the sanctuary are coupled. Knohl, furtherm ore, considered the story of the giving of m anna recounted in Exod 16 to be an older tradition expanded by the holiness school, n o t the priestly editors (74-76). In fact, Knohl assigned the final recension of the priestly m aterial to this school; thus their h an d is found in many m ore places th an Lev 17-26 (66). These exam pies reveal how far-reaching and revolutionary K nohl’s work is. As far as Lev 17- 26 is concerned, his work has added to the evidence against considering this m aterial as a self-contained docum ent. KnohPs efforts, which are ju st com ing to light, will surely stimulate m uch debate for some time to come. In a doctoral dissertation (1989) u n d er the direction of R. Knierim, Sun thoroughly analyzed the structure of each form-critical m acro u n it in this corpus as the p o in t o f dep artu re for investigating the com position history o f the traditionally accepted Holiness Code. H e found that the different speeches in the Holiness Code came from a variety of times. He dated some o f the m aterial to the postdeuteronom ic era. For exam ple, Sun argued that the earliest recoverable layer of Lev 17, namely vv 1-4, appears to presuppose a knowledge o f D eut 12. Furtherm ore, the calendar preserved in chap. 23 appears to be younger than its priestly parallel in Num 28-29, bu t older than the calendars in Exod 23 and D eut 16. T he laws pertaining to the sabbatical year and the year o f Jubilee (chap. 25) refleet the laws o f the fallow year in Exod 23 and those regarding the release of slaves in D eut 15. O thers, giving evidence o f a long and com plicated com position history, may be o f ancient origin, such as the earliest recoverable layers in chaps. 18- 20. Nevertheless, Sun did n o t find any evidence to corroborate the possibility o f an early origin for any of these texts. After analyzing the com positional history of each unit, Sun concluded that the traditional Holiness Code had no existence prior to its present location as an in d ep en d en t legal corpus. T he basis for this conclusion was threefold: the texts contained in the corpus appear to be of widely varying ages; no evidence o f a com positional layer that went through the entire corpus was found; and some

Form/Structure/Setting

259

texts appear to have been com posed with the intention of supplem enting o ther m aterial in the corpus (e.g, 22:1-16 vis-a-vis 21:16-23[24] and 22:26-33 vis-á-vis 22:17-25). In place o f this hypothesis, Sun proposed th at the com positional process th at resulted in this corpus was one of literary supplem entation over a long period o f time, the earliest core o f the corpus being contained in the old m aterial found in chaps. 18-20. T he work o f contem porary scholars has, therefore, cast great doubts on the existence o f “a Holiness C ode” as an in d ep en d en t, self-contained docum ent. While blocks within this corpus stand close together— 18-20, 21-22, 23 + 25— th ere is no unity am ong these various blocks. In addition, if this corpus be viewed as hom ogeneous, no explanation has been able to account for the presence of chaps. 17, 24, and 26. N either has anyone yet dem onstrated that there is a red ac tio n al layer th a t goes th ro u g h th e w hole corpus. T h e re fo re , it can be concluded that in whatever way this collection of speeches came together, they were assembled for their present position in Leviticus. These speeches continue to address the issue o f ritual purity th at is the m ain concern o f chaps. 11-15, and they move on to address ethical relationships. These laws are, furtherm ore, in harm ony with the high purpose o f the sacrificial system, nam ely the goal of purging the Israelites from the harm and guilt caused by their sins in order that they m ight have com m union with the holy God and live a holy life as Yahweh prescribed. These laws are designed thus to offer specific content to the call for his people to be holy as he is holy. T he m agnet holding all o f these statutes together is the self-revelation o f Yahweh. As has been p ointed out, m any linguistic signs indicate that this m aterial belongs with the priestly teaching. This connection m eans th at the priestly writers were interested in ethical holiness as well as cultic holiness. In fact, a prim ary goal of cultic purity is to prom ote ethical purity. T he practice o f discipline in cultic purity prepares the hum an spirit for the ingraining of ethical integrity, for by obeying G od’s law in outward form , a person or a com m unity molds the in n er spirit into conform ity with the holy God. This section of Leviticus is a series of divine sermons, as von Rad and Reventlow have stressed. They are form ulated for delivery and to motivate the congregation to live up to Yahweh’s laws. Thus this m aterial is com posed for hearing, no t for private reading, study, and analysis. This fact accounts for some of the literary unevenness found in the material. Such disjunctive m aterial would n o t necessarily have troubled an ancient audience. O th er breaks, lacunae, dislocations, and difficulties have arisen out o f a com plex matrix: the origin o f these speeches, their transmission, their collection, and their final assembly. For exam ple, since these instructions were com piled for oral delivery, the succession of preachers who delivered them used the opportunity o f the spontaneous nature of an oral presentation to add com m ents, anecdotes, extraneous m aterial, and exhortation into the speech, com pelled by a desire to com m unicate with the audience. A clear exam ple is the placing of the case of the half-breed blasphem er in 24:10-23 as the scaffolding for the presentation o f laws on personal injury. This reconstruction seeks to account for how the m aterial reached its final shape. While the core m aterial goes back to Sinai, it has been augm ented and u pdated in the context o f the cult in o rd er to keep the Word of G od vital and contem porary in Israel’s changing social milieu.

260

L e v it ic u s

17:1-16

W hether th ere was a particular school o r circle in Israel th at preserved and p roduced docum ents that taught and exhorted the people to live a holy life is an open question. W hen and where this group existed will be debated for some time to come. If such a school existed, it had characteristics in com m on with both the priests an d the deuteronom ists. It was concerned with high m oral living an d with cultic purity. In trying to identify this group there will need to be some consensus on which passages outside chaps. 17-26, such as Lev 11, belong to its oudook. These studies on the Holiness Code are intriguing and suggestive. They are m ost helpful in th at they take every p art of the text seriously in search o f clues to how the final p ro d u ct was p u t together. This has resulted in a clearer and m ore precise exegesis o f the m aterial. U nfortunately the conclusions o f the bulk of these studies are built mostly on speculations, ra th e r than on h ard data, by the very natu re o f the docum ents that have survived from antiquity. This is evident in the wide diversity o f these conclusions. Nevertheless, these studies are valuable as they probe the various stages in the developm ent o f Israelite culture and cultic practices. They add substance to the skeleton of Israel’s history. They offer the stu d en t a fuller, though tentative, picture of Israel’s religious practice, its growth an d developm ent. T he findings of these insights and postulations must, nevertheless, be held cautiously subject to adjustm ent in the light of fu rth er studies.

A.

Law s about Sacrificing D om estic Anim als and regarding Blood (17:1 -1 6 )

Bibliography

Aloni, J. ‘The Place of Worship and the Place of Sacrifice according to Leviticus 17:3-9” (Heb.). Shnaton la-Mikra 7 (1983) 21-49. Brichto, H. C. O n Slaughter and Sacrifice, Blood and Atonement.” HUCA 47 (1976) 19-55. Dewar, L. “The Biblical Use of the Term ‘Blood’.” JTS 4 (1953) 204-8. Füglister, N. “Sühne durch Blut—Zur Bedeutung von Leviticus 17, 11.” In Studien zum Pentateuch. Ed. G. Bravlik. FS W. Kornfeld. Wien: Herder, 1977.143-64. GrintzJ. M. “‘Do not eat on the blood.’‫ ״‬ASTIS (1972) 78-105. Kiuchi, N. The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature. JSOTSup 56. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987. 1019. McCarthy, D. ‘The Symbolism of Blood and S a c r i f i c e . 88 (1969) 16676‫ ־‬. -------- . “Further Notes on the Symbolism of Blood and Sacrifice.”JBL 92 (73) 205-10. Metzinger, A. “Die Substitutionstheorie und das alttestam entliche Opfer mit besonderer Berúcksichtigung von Lev 17, 11.” Bib 21 (1940) 159-87, 247-72, 353-77. Milgrom, J. “A Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11.”JBL 90 (1971) 149-56 (=SC7T96-103). Morris, L. “The Biblical Use of the Term ‘Blood’.‫ ״‬JTS n.s. 3 (1952) 216-27; JTS n.s. 6 (1955) 77-82. Rodriguez, A. M. Substitution in the Hebrew Cultus. Andrews University University Doctoral Dissertation Series 3. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews UP, 1979. 233-60. Sabourin, L. “Nefesh, sang et expiation (Lv 17, 11, 14).” ScEc 18 (1966) 25-45. Schenker, A. “Das Zeichen des Blutes und die Gewissheit der Vergebung im Alten Testament: Die sühnende Function des Blutes auf dem Altar nach Lev 17.10-12.” MTZ34 (1983) 195-213. Schwartz, B. J. ‘The Prohibitions concerning the ‘Eating’ of Blood in Leviticus 17.” In Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel. Ed. G. Anderson and S. Olyan. JSOTSup 125. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. 34—66. Snaith, N. ‘The Meaning of ‫שעירים‬.” VT 25 (1975) 115-18.----------- . T h e Verbs zdbah

Notes

261

and sáhat.” VT25 (1975) 24246‫ ־‬. Steinmueller, J. E. “Sacrificial Blood in the Bible.” Bib40 (1959) 56-67. Stíbbs, A. M. The Meaning of the Word ‘Blood’ in Saripture. London: Tyndale Press, 1959. Translation

1Yahweh spoke to Moses: 2 “Speak to Aaron, his sons a and all the Israelites4 and say to them: This is the word which Yahweh has commanded: 3A nya Israelite40 who sacrifices a bull, a sheep, or a goat within the camp or outside 4instead of bringing it to the entrance of the Tent of Meetinga4 to presentc an offering to Yahweh before the tabernacle of Yahweh— that man is to be considered guilty of bloodshed4 He has shed bloody and that man€ m il be cut off from his people. 5This is so the Israelites m ü bring the sacrifices which they have been sacrificing in the open field,a that is, that they bringb them to Yahweh to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to the priest, and they are to sacrifice themc as offerings of well-being to Yahweh. 6The priest is to dash the blood on the altara of Yahweh4 at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting and burn the fa t as a soothing aroma to Yahweh. 7They shall no longer offer their sacrifices to the goat demons with whoma they prostitute themselves. This is a perpetual decreefor them and for their generations. 8 “Say to them:a Any4 Israelite or resident alzenc living among themd who offers upe a whole offering or an offering of well-beingf 9and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meetinga to perform the ritualb before Yahweh, that man m il be cut offfrom his people. 10 “I f any a Israelite4 or resident alien living among themc eats any blood 4 1 will set my face against that person who has eaten blood and cut him off from his people, 11for the life of an animal resides in the blooda4 T have assigned4 it to you to make atonement for your livese on the altar, because it is the bloodf that makes atonement by the life. 12Therefore, I say to the Israelites, None of you shall eat blood; also the resident alien living among you shall not eat blood.’a 13 “I f any Israelitea or resident alien living among them4 capturesc game orfowl that it is lawful to eat, he is to pour out its4 blood and cover it with earth,14because the life of every animal is its blood [it is its lifea]. Thus Isay to the Israelites: You shall not eat the blood of any animal,4 because the life of every animal is its blood; whoever eatsc it will be cut off. ’ 15 “I f anyone, either a native or a resident aliena eats from an animal found dead or mauled, he is to wash4 his clothes and bathe4 in water, and he becomes unclean until evening; then he becomes cleans 16But i f he does not wash (his clothes) a and bathe his body, he m il bear his iniquity.” Notes 2.a. llQpaleoLev omits ‫ואל״בניו‬, “and to his sons.” This is attributed to an error of haplography. 2. b. The same threefold number of those addressed by Moses occurs also in 21:24 and 22:18. 3. a. The repetition of the noun ‫איש איש‬, “man, man,” yields a distributive sense (GKC §123c); cf. 15:2; 18:6. 3.b. For MT ‫מבית‬, “from the house of,” some Heb mss, LXX, and Syr read ‫מבני‬, “from the sons of,” as in v 13. The divergence from v 2 supports MT. 3. c. LXXaadds ή τω ν π ρ ο σ ή λ υ τω ν τω ν π ρ ο σ κ ειμ έν ω ν έ ν ΰμ ΐν , “or the resident aliens living among you,” as in vv 8, 10, 13, and 16:29. Many believe that the LXX preserves the original text, for the laws in chap. 17 occur in the same form with little variation. If so, it is best to read ‫בתוכם‬, “in their midst,” with Elliger (219) instead of ‫בתוככם‬, “in your midst,” as in vv 8, 10, 13. MT, nevertheless, is preferred as the shorter text. 4. a. Sam and lx x add ‫לעשות אתו עלה או שלמים ליהוה לרצונכם לריח ניחח וישחטהו בחוץ‬ ‫ואל״פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו‬, “to present it as a whole offering or one of well-being to Yahweh for your

262

L

e v it ic u s

1 7 :1 -1 6

acceptance as a soothing aroma, and he slaughters it outside, and he does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” Sun (“Investigation,” 66-67) gives weight to this variant. He argues that the Vorlage to LXX, however, contained a dittography in this variant; he reconstructs the original to read ΠΓΓ] ‫לעשות אתו לעלה או שלמים ליהוה לרצון לריח‬, “to perform with it the ritual for a whole offering or an offering of well-being to Yahweh for acceptance as a soothing aroma.” This variant is a witness to how this speech has grown throughout the centuries. 4.b. The prep phrase ‫ ואל פתח אהל □ועד‬, “and to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting,” stands first for emphasis. 4.c. Sam, a few LXX mss, Tg Neof., and Syr read a pronominal suffix on the inf ‫להקריב‬, “to present.” 4.d. □‫ ר‬, “blood,” is a key term in this chapter. Here it is used as a metonymy to mean “guilty of bloodshed,” i.e., a brutal murder. Such a crime received the severest penalty. 4. e. For MT ‫האיש ההוא‬, “that man,” LXX has ή ψυχή έκείυη, “that person,” as in 22:3. And it goes on to read τον λαόν αυτής, “his people,” since ψυχή, “soul, person,” is fern. 5. a. ‫ פני השדה‬, “face of the field,” means “an open field” in distinction to an area enclosed by city walls or a court. 5.b. This waw is the waw apodosis, which takes up the same verb ‫ והביאם‬. . . ‫ למען אשר יביאו‬, “in order that they bring . . . and that they bring them.” LXX does not read the pronominal suffix on the second ‫הביא‬. 5. c. The acc ‫אתם‬, “them,” receives emphasis, for it is far removed from the verb and ends the verse. 6. a. For MT‫על~מזבח‬, “on the altar,” LXX has 70‫ ־‬Θυσιαστήριου κύκλω άπέυαυτι, “round about the altar before . . . ” 6. b. Sam has ‫אשר‬, “which.” 7. a. The relative pronoun is resumed by the pronominal suffix on the prep ‫אחריהם‬, “after them.” 8. a. The prep phrase stands first for emphasis; cf. 20:2; 17:2a^. 8.b. Cf. n. 3.a. 8.c. The term ‫גר‬, “resident alien,” occurs several times in chaps. 17-26: e.g., 17:8, 10, 12, 13; 20:2; 22:18. Frequendy the phrase ‫אשר יגור בתוכם‬, “who sojourns among you,” appears with it. It is sometimesjoined with ‫אזרח‬, “citizen” (e.g., v 15), or with ‫תושב‬, “inhabitant” (e.g., 25:23, 35). LXX adds τώ υ υίώυ, “the sons of,” before ‫הגר‬, “the resident alien.” 8.d. Instead of the 3rd person pronominal suffix Sam, LXX, Syr, Tgmss, Tg. Ps.-J., and Vg read ‫בתוככם‬, “in your midst.” This variant may have arisen as a case of dittography. 8.e. Instead of MT ‫יעלה‬, “he will offer up,” Sam and LXX read ‫יעשה‬, “he will do [the ritual of],” the same verb as used in v 9. 8. f. MT ‫ זבח‬means “a sacrifice”; it is an older term for an offering of well-being. Tg renders it by ‫נכסת קודשא‬, the phrase it uses for an offering of well-being. The Tg, like this Eng trans., may be seeking to make its trans. clearer rather than being a witness to a different Heb text. 9. a. Cf. n. 4.b. 9. b. The Heb is simply ‫לעשות‬, “to do,” but the context indicates that it is elliptical for performing the entire ritual prescribed; cf. 9:16, 22; 14:19, 30; 16:9, 24. 10. a. Cf. n. 3.a. lO.b. Cf. n. 3.b. lO.c. Cf. n. 8.d. 10. d. A couple of Heb mss, Syr, and Vg omit ‫דם‬, “blood.” 11. a. With α ΐμ α α ύ τ ο ϋ = ‫בדמו‬, LXX reads a pronominal suffix on ‫דם‬. 1l.b. The nominal clause introduced by ‫כי‬, “because,” stands first for emphasis. ll.c. The personal pronoun ‫אני‬, “I,” is used with the verb to underscore God’s resolve. 11.d. ‫ ינתן‬lit. “give, put,” with God as subject means “appoint, assign” (e.g., Num 8:19; 18:8, 9; Milgrom, S C T T 9 7 ¡ J B L 90 (1971) 150]). ll.e. The term ‫נפשתיכם‬, “your souls or yourselves,” is translated “your lives” in order to render each occurrence of ‫ נפש‬in this verse by the same term. 11. f. The pronoun ‫ הוא‬makes this a nominal sentence and highlights ‫הדם‬, “the blood,” as subject (cf. GKC§135c). 12. a. In vv 10-12 Schenker ( M T Z 34 [1983] 197-98) finds several chiastic patterns: v 10

A

P ro h ib itio n

v 11

R easo n

v 10

R e p e titio n o f p r o h ib itio n

v 11a v lib v 11c

R eason In s titu te d by Yahweh R eason

a β a

B A

Form/Structure/Setting

263

V 11, the center of the larger chiasm, has its own chiasm. The center and the point of emphasis is v lib. Schenker finds a chiasm in the meaning of ‫נפש‬, “life, person”: v 10 v 11a v lib vi l e v 12

person life persons life person

Furthermore, vv 10-12 stand at the center of the laws in chap. 17; the preceding two laws treat the slaughter of domesticated animals (vv 2-9) and the following two laws concern eating from animals that may not be sacrificed (vv 13-16). 13.a. Sam and Tg. Ps.-J. read ‫מבית‬, “from the house of,” for MT’s ‫מבני‬, “from the sons of’; cf. n. 3.a. 13.b. Some Sam mss and the versions read ‫בתוככם‬, “among you”; cf. n. 8.d. 13.c. The sg verb indicates that the pi subj is to be interpreted distributively; i.e., each violator is to be so punished (GKC §145e). ^ 13. d. Many LXX mss do not read the pronoun “its”; this may be a matter of the translator’s preference. 14. a. It is not surprising that a Heb mss, LXX, Syr, and Vg do not read ‫בנפשו‬, “by its soul.” This may be a choice of translation because of the redundancy in the verse. Neither JB nor NEB render this term. Bertholet (60) takes the evidence from the versions to argue that this phrase was added later to bring this verse into conformity with v 11. About the only way to translate the phrase ‫בנפשו‬, “in its life,” is to take the prep ‫ ב‬as beth essentiae (so Keil and Delitzsch, 410). This sentence then corresponds to Deut 12:23,‫ הדם הוא הנפש‬, “the blood is the life” (cf. Milgrom, 5C7T96 \JB L 90 (1971) 149]). However, in the discussion on v 11 in the section comment it is questioned whether such a ‫ ב‬exists. PIR (186) explains ‫ בנפשו הוא‬as a relative clause with the preceding ‫דמו‬, “his blood,” being the subject; they translate it “ it (i.e., the blood) is in its body.” Since this phrase is most likely an insertion, it is bracketed in the trans. Cf. C. Gordon, “‘In’ of Predications or Equivalence,”/f?L 100 (1981) 612-13. 14.b. This construct chain, which is the dir obj, stands before the verb for emphasis. 14. c. Sam, LXX, Syr, Tg, and Tg. Ps.-J. have a sg participial form ‫אכלו‬, “whoever eats it”; cf. 19:8; GKC §1451. PIR (186) interprets the MT as a distributive pi. 15. a. The prep 2 on both nouns in opposition is the estimative beth, which establishes the range of an issue (7£tfS§11.2.5e). 15.b. Though ‫נפש‬, “person,” a fern, is the antecedent of the mase verbs ‫ ורחץ‬. . . ‫וכבס‬, “he is to wash ... and to bathe,” the grammar follows the sense rather than precise grammatical form (GKC §145a). 15. c. Sam omits ‫וטהר‬, “and he becomes clean.” 16. a. A Heb ms reads ‫בגדיו‬, “his garments,” in place of MT ‫ובשרו‬, “and his body.” LXX adds τ ά ί μ ά τ ι α , “the garments,” as is frequently the idiom, e.g., Lev. 15:5, 6, 7, 8, etc. This Eng trans. adds these words for clarity. While the MT may be an error of haplography, the shorter reading is preferable. In fact, in v 15 the object is used with ‫כבס‬, “wash,” but not with ‫רחץ‬, “bathe”; the obverse is the case in v 16. Therefore, this variation in supplying the dir obj of these verbs may be a planned literary style so that the obj is implied where it is not stated. F orm ,/Structure/Setting

T he structure of this speech is as follows:I. I. Introductory formula (v 1) II. Speech proper (vv 2-16) A. First speech (vv 2-7) 1. Commission to speak (v 2a) 2. First speech proper (vv 2b-7) a. Superscription (v 2b) b. Law concerning slaughter of sacrificial animals (vv 3-7a) 1) Law against sacrificing away from the Tent of Meeting (vv 3-4) a) Case (vv 3-4a) b) Consequence (v 4b)

264

L e v it ic u s

1 7 :1 1 6 ‫־‬

2) Reasons (vv 5-7a) a) Grounded in basic standard of handling blood of a sacrifice (w 5-6) b) Designed to prevent sacrificing to evil spirits (v 7a) c. Subscription (v 7b) B. Second speech (vv 8-16) 1. Brief commission to speak (v 8aa) 2. Second speech proper (vv 8a/3-16) a. Series of three laws (vv 8a/3-14) 1) Law concerning illegitimate sacrifice (vv 8a/29‫)־־‬ a) Case (vv 8a/3-9a) b) Consequence (v 9b) 2) Law against eating of blood (vv 10-12) a) Primary law (v 10) (1) Case (v 10a) (2) Consequence (v 10b) b) Reasons (vv 11-12) (1) Primary reason (v 11) (2) Supporting reason with two prohibitions (v 12) (a) Introductory formula (v 12aa) (b) Twofold prohibition against eating blood (v 12a/?fb) 3) Law concerning handling blood of wild animals (vv 13-14) a) Law proper (v 13) (1) Case (v 13a) (2) Instruction for proper handling of blood (v 13b) b) Reasons with a prohibition and a general law against eating blood with “cut-off’ penalty (v 14) b. Laws concerning eating meat from a dead animal (vv 15-16) 1) Basic law (v 15) a) Case (v 15a) b) Instruction about restoration to a state of cleanliness (v 15b) 2) Subsequent law on failing to pursue ritual cleansing (v 16) a) Case (v 16a) b) Consequence (v 16b) T he speech consists o f two sections (vv 2 7 ‫ ־‬and 8-16), each h eaded by its own in tro d u ctio n . T h e in tro d u c tio n to th e second u n it is th e briefest possible: ‫ אלה □ תאמר‬, “you will say to th em .” Standing in the m idst o f the speech, it serves as a rhetorical device to call attention to the authority o f the com ing words. T he them e of the first section is the presentation of all sacrifices on the altar to Yahweh, and the central issue o f the second section is that blood may n o t be eaten. The structural signals divide the chapter into two sections as the above oudine indicates. But, as Sun observes (“Investigation,” 83-87), the content divides the chapter into three sections: (1) on illegitimate sacrifice (vv 2-9), (2) on handling blood (vv 10-14), and (3) on eating from an anim al’s carcass (vv 15-16). Some tension exists, therefore, between the co n ten t and the structure. W hich of these two forces should be followed? The similar formulation of the protasis of the laws in w 8-14 and the similar com pound subject— ‫איש איש מבית )מבני( ישראל ומן הגר אשר‬ ‫ יגור בתוכם‬, “every Israelite and every resident alien in their m idst”—in the three laws found in vv 8-14 are additional signals, lending support to placing vv 8-9 with the following laws, not the preceding one. Thus the structural signals are followed.

Form/Structure/Setting

265

Five laws constitute the scaffolding for this speech, and three reasons have been attached to this scaffold (vv 5 -7 ,1 1 -1 2 ,1 4 ). T he case o f the first four laws is form ulated similarly: ‫ אשר‬. . . ‫ איש איש מן‬, “if any person . . . ” (vv 3, 8, 10, 13). This legal form is often labeled apodictic, bu t contem porary study in ancient law brings th at classification into question. In any case, these laws are universal in scope, applying to everyone living in Israel at all times. T he consequence for the first four laws is the “c u to ff” penalty, though in the fourth law it comes in the motivatio n ;(‫ נכ ר ת האיש ההוא מ ק רב עמו)מעמיו‬, “that person will be cut off from the m idst o f his people(s)” (vv 4b, 9b, 10b/2 [‫ הכ ר תי אתה מק רב עמה‬, “I [Yhwh] will cut him off from his p eo p le”]; 14b/3 [‫יכרת‬, “one will be cut o ff”]). In the third law the consequence is stated m ore forcefully by being p u t in the divine first person. How to account for this variation, however, is n o t clear. It m ust have taken place when the m otivation, which also uses the divine first person, was attached to the law. Since the use o f the first person form is n o t consistent in this speech, it is very possible th at the speaker who p u t the speech together found the shift to the first person in the source from which he took this third law and its supporting motivation. T h at the first person form has rem ained tells us th at the rhetorical force o f the direct address won out over the traditional third person legal form. T he case o f the fifth law, though still universal in scope, has a different form ulation. T he case is a relative clause: ‫וכל״בפש אשר‬, “any person w ho” (v 15). T he com pound phrase qualifying the subject, ‫ ב אזר ח ובגר‬, “either a citizen or a resid en t alien,” is in accord with the scope of the preceding three laws but employs a distinct phraseology. In place o f the “cut-off’ penalty stand instructions regarding ritual purity (v 15b). These factors indicate that this law had its hom e in a differen t corpus. A nother distinctive about this law is that it is supported not by a reason b u t by a subordinate law that specifies the penalty for anyone who fails to abide by the instructions o f the prim ary law. T he severity o f the penalty, of course, provides strong m otivation for the preceding law. These directions regarding ritual purity in regard to eating are in the same arena as the purity laws in chap. 11 (cf. vv 32, 40). This fact indicates that this last law had its hom e in a corpus on ritual purity in regard to food. T he sequence o f terse sentences in these two laws points to an ancient origin. This u n it becam e attached to this speech, because of the them atic tie with the preceding law, which addresses the issue of eating m eat from non-sacrificial animals. A puzzling aspect of this speech is the inclusion of both the first and second laws (vv 4-5 and vv 8-9), for their goal is so similar that to the m odern m ind they appear red undant. T he variations in their form ulations, though, indicate that while these laws are overlapping, they are no t duplicates. They regulate a com m on issue from a different viewpoint. T he first law prohibits the ritual slaughter of an anim al as an offering of well-being away from the altar. Every such sacrifice is to be presented as ‫ ק ר בן ליהוה‬, “an offering to Yahweh.” The goal o f this law is to stop all ritual slaughter in the open country in o rd er that no sacrifices be presented to the field spirits. T he second law, on the o th er hand, directs that every kind of sacrifice be presented on the central altar. T he vocabulary of the second law indicates th at it is older than the preceding one: the general phrase ‫לע שות‬, “to d o ,” i.e., “to p erfo rm a sacrifice,” is used instead o f the technical liturgical phrase ‫ ל ה ק רי ב קרבן‬, “to present an offering” (cf. 1:2), and the m erism ‫ ע ל ה חבה‬, “whole offering and sacrifice,” i.e., “all sacrifices,” refers to an offering o f well-being

266

L e v it ic u s

17:1-16

simply by ‫ז ב ח‬, an archaic way (cf. chap. 3 for Excursus at the beginning of Commen(). T he m uch sim pler form ulation o f this law supports this ju d g m en t. By contrast the first law is filled with technical term s found th ro u g h o u t the priestly legislation: ‫ שור או כשב או עז‬, “bull or sheep o r g o at” (7:23; 22:27; N um 18:17), ‫במחנ ה‬, “in the cam p” (Exod 32:17; Lev 24:10; N um 11:26, 2 7 ) , ‫ מחוץ למחנה‬, “out‫־‬ side the cam p” (e.g., Exod 29:14; Lev 4:12, 21; 6:4[11]; 8:17; 9:11; 16:27; 24:14, 23; Num 5:3, 44; 12:14, 1 5 ), ‫ ל ה ק רי ב קרבן‬, “to present an offering” (1:3, 14; 3:7, 14; 7:14; Num 6:14; 9:13; 15:4), ‫ מ ש ק יהוה‬, “tabernacle o f Yahweh” (singular here to Leviticus, but in Num 16:9; 17:28[13]; 19:13; 31:30 and in Chronicles, e.g., 1 C hr 16:39; cf. Cholewiiiski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 24, n.), ‫ ד□ שפך‬, “he has shed b lo o d ” (Gen 9:6; cf. N um 35:33). Most of these technical term s, however, could have en tered this law through a growth process, ra th e r than being a p art of its original form ulation. T he final form o f this law conform s to the priestly style. T he declaratory form ula ‫ ד ם שפך‬, “he has shed blood,” which is a sentence pro n o u n ced by a court, does suggest, however, that this law may have had its setting in the legal corpus of an an cient priestly court instead of the priestly professional knowledge. This original setting for this law may account for the growth process; i.e., technical term s becam e attached to the law in o rd er to enable the court to apply it definí‫־‬ tively to specific situations. An illustration o f how this law was adapted to changing cultic situations may account for the inclusion of both phrases ‫ פ ת ח אהל מועד‬, “the entrance o f the T ent of M eeting,” and ‫ ל פני משכן יהוה‬, “before the tabernacle of Yahweh.” T he latter phrase was included to have the law apply to the Tem ple in the Kingdom period. This law then had a different origin from that o f the o th er laws. T he consequence of the third law (v 10), which prohibits eating blood, has b een recast from the im personal third person to direct divine address stated twice— ‫ונתתי פני ב‬, “I shall set my face against,” and ‫והכרתי‬, “I shall cut o f f ’—in o rd er to give it greater rhetorical force. T he clue that it has been rew orked is that the case is still in the third person singular (v 10a). T he use o f the divine first person is in harm ony with the style of the holiness m aterial, as the similar wording in 20:6b confirm s (Kilian, LiterarkHtische, 18). T he two reasons (vv 11 and 12) in support o f this law both employ the divine first p e rs o n ,‫נתתי‬, “I have given,” and ‫אמרתי‬, “I have said.” As shown in note 12.a., Schenker shows the various chiasms within vv 10-12, which add to the rhetorical power o f the central portion o f this speech. T he m ultiple chiasms also indicate th at these verses as they stand com e from the speaker. T hat is, though the m aterial was taken from the priestly pro‫־‬ fessional knowledge, it was form ulated for its present setting. T he fourth law (v 13) regulates the handling o f blood from edible game. The issue about eating the m eat of permissible gam e is a concern of the food laws in chap. 11. T hough the case has been expanded somewhat, its straightforw ard and basic form ulation points toward its being an ancient law. T he anomaly, though, is th at in place o f the consequence are instructions for handling the blood (v 13b). Kilian thinks th at the “cut-off’ penalty in v 14b/3 was originally the consequence o f this law, b u t Sun (“Investigation,” 103) is n o t persuaded. T hat the next law has an instruction in the position o f the consequence supports accepting this law as it stands. These facts indicate that this law was taken from a different legal setting than were the preceding laws, i.e., a legal corpus concerning ritual purity in regard to food such as is found in chap. 11.

Form/Structure/Setting

267

W hen these laws were assembled in this speech, reasons were added to encourage com pliance with them . These motivations enhance greatly the speech’s rhetorical quality. An elaborate motivation (vv 5-7) supports the first law. Like laws in general it is cast in the im personal style of the third person plural. The use o f the older way of referring to an offering o f well-being simply by ‫ז ב ח‬, “sacrifice,” in both vv 5a and 7a, offers a h in t that an older form ulated reason has been expanded and m ade m ore definitive with the inclusion of technical priestly term s such as ‫ זבחי שלמים‬, “sacrifices of well-being,” along with v 6, which was taken from a liturgical regulation (cf. 3:2b, 5). T he repetition within this motivation supports this position. T he occurrence o f ‫ והבאם ליהוה‬, “that they may bring them to Yahweh,” picks up the initial ‫יביאו‬, “they bring ,” and moves it to com pletion; the verb has been repeated to bear the weight o f the additions. T he inclusion of ‫ א ל הכהן‬, “to the priest,” after ‫ א ל פתח אהל מועד‬, “to the entrance o f the Tent of M eeting,” is red u n dant, bu t it has been included, possibly by a later hand, to underscore the need for a priest to be on duty to officiate at the m aking o f a sacrifice. This inclusion drew the liturgical instruction in v 6 about the priest’s ‫ז ר ק‬, “dashing,” blood on the altar; then ‫ ה ק טי ר ה חלב‬, “b u rn in g the fat,” becam e attached (cf. Cholewiiiski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 20-21). In v 6a ‫ פ ת ח אהל מועד‬, “the entrance o f the Tent o f M eeting,” has been inserted after ‫ מזב ח יהוה‬, “the altar of Yahweh,” even though the two phrases together overburden the line, in o rder to make a specific tie with the law (v 4aa) and to m ake sure that the m ain altar is m eant by the phrase ‫ פ ת ח אהל מועד‬, “at the entrance of the Tent o f M eeting.” (For a very interesting traditio-historical possibility on this phrase, see Cholewiriski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 24-26.) T he fact that ‫ מזבח יהוה‬is a rare phrase in the sacrificial legislation is evidence that it is the original phrase. In v 7b ‫ ל ד ר ת ם‬, “to their generations,” has been added to reinforce the phrase □‫ ח ק ת עול‬, “a perpetual decree.” In the em ploym ent of technical cultic term s and repetitions, this motivation is in accord with the preceding law. T hat is, the repetitions indicate that term s have been added to contem porize the motivation. But a different vocabulary from that law points to its having a different origin, i.e., ‫ בני ישראל‬, “Israelites,” in place of ‫ בי ת ישראל‬, “the house of Israel,”‫זב ח‬, “sacrifice,” in place of ‫שחט‬, “slaughter,” ‫זב ח‬, “a sacrifice,” instead of ‫ ק ר בן‬, “offering,” and ‫ ע ל פני השדה‬, “on the open field,” in place o f ‫ מחוץ למחנה‬, “outside the cam p” (Elliger, 222). Vv 11 and 12 provide several reasons in support of the preceding law. V 11 opens with a nom inal sentence, moves to a prohibition introduced with a divine speech form ula ‫“ — אני נתתי לכ ם‬I have assigned it for you”—and concludes with a com plex nom inal sentence similar to the opening one. T he use of the divine first person confronts the bearers with a word from Yahweh. The interplay o f the term s ¿‫נפל‬, “life” (3 x ),‫ ד ם‬, “blo o d ” (3x), and ‫ כ פ ר‬, “expiate” (2x), creates great rhetorical force. V 12 gives additional m otivation to observing the law in v 10 with two prohibitions against eating blood. These prohibitions are vigorously introduced by the divine speech form ula ‫ ע ל ־ ק אמרתי לבני ישראל‬, “therefore, I say to the Israelites.” This rhetorical style carries the im print of the ancient speaker. The reason (v 14) in support o f the law in v 13 is form ulated similarly to the motivations in vv 11-12. It has two parts. In both parts there is a nom inal statem ent about the essence o f blood followed by a law; the first law is a prohibition, and the second is a universal (apodictic) com m and. T he first reason is underscored with a divine first person introduction. T he universal law carries the “cut-off’

268

L e v it ic u s

17:1-16

penalty, which is at hom e in this speech. T he many parts o f this com plex motivation are connected by the interplay o f three terms: ‫נפש‬, “life” (3x), ‫כל־ב ש ר‬, “all flesh” (3x), and ‫ ד ם‬, “b lood” (3x). Besides providing a m otivation for the preceding law, this reason ties that law m ore tightly into this setting. T he lack o f a reason being attached to the second law (vv 8-9) may be accounted for on the basis that the speaker considered this law to be virtually a restatem ent o f the first law (vv 3-4). If that is correct, the reasons given in vv 5-7 th en apply to th at law also in its present setting. From this description it is very clear that this speech is a com plex m ixture of materials. Its diverse nature has led to num erous reconstructions o f how it came together. Kilian (Literarkútische, 8-16) and F eucht ( Untersuchungen, 30-31) accept the first four laws as the kernel o f this speech. Kilian (16-17) finds that the first expansion was the pre-priestly portion o f vv 5-7, an interpretation o f the preceding law. T h en the speech went through two priestly redactions (17-20). In the first one the laws were expanded to cover the ‫ג ר‬, “resident alien.” In the seco n d the editor included parenetic m aterial (vv 10, 11, 12, 14) designed in the style o f the holiness material. Elliger (224), however, assigns to the base layer the m iddle th ree laws; to them was added the law in vv 3-4 (similarly Cholewiiiski, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 17-18); for him vv 15-16 are an appendix. Sun (“Investigation,” 95-106) argues that vv 1-4 were an original priestly com position to which the reasons in vv 5-7 were added. T he speech continued to grow in stages over time. At each stage one o f the following laws with its reason was added in the o rd e r in which they appear. T he variety o f these scholarly ju d g m en ts indicates that there are n o t sufficient clues in the text to provide any certainty for a detailed reconstruction o f the com position history o f this speech. A few conjectures, nevertheless, may be set forth. T he speaker took the first law from the priestly court m aterial and the next four from the priestly professional knowledge, the first two from the section on m aking sacrifices and die last two from the section on ritual purity in regards to food. To m ake up the speech, he com posed reasons for some o f the laws; he may have been led in this direction by finding one o r m ore o f the laws like the law in v 10 already supported by a motivation. For his reasons, he drew on the priestly tradition. Some later additions filled o u t the reasons. W hether the speaker was responsible for the divine first person is difficult to tell given its inconsistent usage. T he fifth law was probably taken from the priestly professional knowledge and ap p en d ed to this speech by an o th er hand. In any case, it is evident that the thread uniting all these laws and their atten d an t reasons is the issue of eating blood; ‫ ד ם‬, “blo o d ,” occurs in vv 4 (2x), 6, 10 (2x), 11 (2x), 12 (2x), 13, 14 (3x). T he central three laws and their reasons are fu rth er bou n d together by the term ‫נפש‬, “life, soul,” which also occurs in v 15. While the present speech appears choppy to a m odern reader, it needs to be rem em bered th at this speech was com posed for proclam ation to the com m unity assembled at the central sanctuary for instruction and for exhortation. An excellent speaker can overcom e this unevenness as he delivers the speech to teach, warn, and ex hort the people in their worship of Yanweh. T he rhetorical force of this speech is en h an ced by taking the audience back to the time of their origin at Sinai as a covenant people through the use o f archaic wording, e.g ., ‫ פ ת ח אהל מועד‬, “the entrance to the Tent o f M eeting,” and ‫ י ע ל ה על ה או״זבח‬, “one who is offering

Comment

269

up a whole offering or a sacrifice” (cf. Reven tlow, Heiligkeitsgesetz, 50-52). This style thus places in tension laws phrased for the desert setting, such as the first one (w 3 -4), and guidance for a settled community, such as the m otivation in vv 5-7. T he use o f the divine first person and direct address, besides giving an immediacy to these words, recaptures the picture of Yahweh’s speaking to his people through Moses. This tension witnesses to the dynamic character o f Israel’s faith. At the hearing o f the ancient laws, contem porary Israel was called to obedience ju st as ancient Israel had been. A lthough the outward form o f that obedience changed over time, as the inclusion o f term s and phrases to contem porize the laws shows, the basic principles endured. T he ancient word m ade contem porary carried the same authority as its original delivery, for the design o f the inclusions was to have the law apply to cu rren t practice and understanding. T h at is, m aking the law contem porary did n o t seek to break with the past; ra th e r it sought to prom ote obedience to the ancient laws in the present. T he com m on bond between the past giving o f the word and the present hearing of the word is the worship of Yahweh, who revealed him self at Sinai. Despite m any scholars who hold that for the m ost p art the m aterial is late, this speech contains a basic tradition th at goes back to the time of the wilderness, as Revendow (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 34, 40-41, 50) andK ilian (Literarhritische, 12-13) hold. Comment

1-2 ‫ ואמרת‬. . . ‫ ד ב ר‬, “speak . . . and say”; this full introductory form ula with a double com m and signals a new section (cf. 15:1). T he threefold indirect object o f ‫ ד ב ר‬, “speak,” nam ely Aaron, his sons, and all the Israelites, m eans that this m aterial applies to both priests and laity. F urtherm ore, it indicates that this is the opening o f a m ajor section o f the book. T he enum eration o f those addressed is required since the preceding speech (chap. 16) is addressed prim arily to Aaron. This threefold audience occurs elsewhere in 21:24 and 22:18. T he prim ary audience o f the laws found in chaps. 17-26, nevertheless, is the people, for these laws treat issues th at Yahweh desires the people to know both for direction in their own living and for understanding the obligations placed on the priests in daily living. A aron and his sons may have been included to stress their role in teaching the people these laws. 3 T he opening regulation addresses the ‫שחט‬, “slaughter,” of dom esticated animals, nam ely ‫שור‬, “a bull,” ‫כ שב‬, “a sheep,” or ‫ עז‬, “a goat” (cf. 22:27), anywhere, either ‫במחנ ה‬, “in the cam p,” or in the countryside, ‫ מחו ץ למחנה‬, (lit.) “outside the cam p,” for only these anim als are perm issible as sacrifices (cf. 1:2). O bservance o f this law insures that the blood o f all sacrificial animals is disposed o f properly and guarantees th at both God and the priests receive their p ro p er portion o f the slaughtered animal. T he in terpretation o f this law, nevertheless, is com plicated because the word ‫שחט‬, “slaughter,” has both a popular m eaning for ordinary slaughtering of an anim al (e.g., as Gen 37:31) and a restricted cultic m eaning for the ritual slaughter o f an anim al (cf. 1:5). T he big question then is w hether ‫ שחט‬is used broadly or restrictively. T h at is, does this law require th at every dom esticated anim al be slaughtered at the altar o f the central sanctuary, or does it only require that every ritual sacrifice be perform ed there?

270

L e v it ic u s 1 7 :1 -1 6

This question has been widely debated. A broad understanding of ‫ שחט‬holds that this law prohibits all profane slaughter (e.g., Wellhausen School). This widely held interpretation understands that in Israel every slaughter of a dom esticated anim al was considered to be a sacrifice. If this view is accurate, this law requires th at the slaughter o f every dom esticated anim al be done at the altar before the T ent o f M eeting. Such a stringent requirem ent would have been im practical for Israel save in two b rief periods o f h er history, i.e., during the wilderness jo u rn ey and im mediately after the re tu rn from Babylon. Only in these two periods did the bulk o f the population live in close enough proxim ity to the central altar to Yahweh to keep this standard. Some conservatives, accepting the broad m eaning o f ‫שחט‬, “slaughter,” take the position th at this law applied only to the wilderness period. In that setting the proxim ity o f the people to the altar along with the infrequency o f fam ilies’ being able to make a sacrifice, given the poverty o f the people at that time, enabled strict com pliance with this law. Later when the people settled the prom ised land, this strict standard was abrogated by the laws of D eut 12:15-16, 20-27 (cf. Keil and Delitzsch, 409; Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 180ff; Segal, The Pentateuch, 52; H arrison, 179; W enham, 241). This position, however, faces a m ajor obstacle. T he supporting reason in v 7 states that the law is □‫ ח ק ת על‬, “a p erpetual d ecree,” ‫ל חר ת ם‬, “to com ing generations” (v 7b). While it m ight be argued that this statem en t applies only to the prohibition against sacrificing goats to dem ons (v 7a; Keil and Delitzsch, 409), it is structurally defensible that v 7b applies to vv 3-7a (cf. Form/Structure/Setting) . Thus there is no internal evidence that this law was designed only for the time of Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness. A variation of this position is proposed by B. J. B am berger (179). H e speculates that this law arose in the early days of the post-exilic com m unity in ord er to discourage pagan custom s o f th e p eo p le who rem a in ed in th e lan d d u rin g the exile. Wrh e n the population grew and then spread out, the practice o f D euteronom y was restored. Unfortunately, there is no t sufficient evidence to evaluate this creative proposal. Most critical scholars find that the only setting in which such a decree could have been im p lem ented was the small post-exilic com m unity settled aro u n d Jerusalem ju st after the re tu rn from exile. This view also faces m ajor difficulties. If this law arose at that time, it would have been applicable for only a short span o f time in Israel’s history, the few years after the re tu rn from exile. Even during the post-exilic period the im plem entation of this decree would have placed severe hardship on pockets of Israelites scattered th ro u g h o u t Palestine who looked to the Tem ple as their worship center, the very people the small struggling com m unity at Jerusalem needed for m oral and financial support in their adventure to rebuild the capital city. T he Jewish population scattered th ro u g h o u t the land could hardly bring all their animals to Jerusalem for slaughter. Moreover, it is reasonable to suppose that the visionary hope o f an Israel restored to full splend o r as portrayed in various prophets around the time of the exile and afterwards would have m ilitated against that small, hopeful com m unity’s form ulating such a stringent standard. The early post-exilic era thus does n o t offer fertile soil for the origin o f this decree. Given these obstacles to the two dom inant views, we need to look for an o th er possible interpretation. It is possible th at this law addresses only the slaughter of consecrated anim als as offerings of well-being (Rashi, 78). While the tone of the

Comment

271

context suggests th at it covers all slaughter as sacrifice, the view that the verb ‫שחט‬ has a restricted sense, i.e., referring to ritual slaughter, has the support of many Jewish scholars like Rabbis Akiba and Sipra. Snaith ( VT25 [1975] 243-44) points o u t th at ‫ שחט‬is norm ally used in priestly m aterial for legitim ate, sacred slaughter, and Levine (113) accepts the restricted m eaning based on the argum ent that ‫ שחט‬has a narrow er m eaning in sacrificial texts. Milgrom argues that ‫ שחט‬technically means “cut the th ro at” (“Ethics and Ritual,” 173). In this light, then, this law specifically requires that all sacrificial slaughtering be done at an official altar (Noordtzij, 174-75). This interpretation finds that this law is in accord with the law in D eut 12:15-16. W hereas the wording of D eut 12:15-16 perm its profane slaughter away from the altar, this law and the following one state the obverse, stressing that an anim al in ten d ed for an offering o f well-being has to be slaughtered at the altar. This law, therefore, does n o t address the issue of the ordinary slaughtering o f dom esticated animals. In support of this position is the requirem ent that only animals w ithout defect could be presented at the altar (1:3; 3:1, 6). If this law dealt with the slaughter o f all edible dom esticated animals, there would need to be fu rth er laws on what to do with edible animals having a defect, for such animals were a significant percentage o f a herd. Such laws would be similar to the exceptions provided in the laws on the sacrifice of all firstlings in D eut 15:19-23. Any such qualifying regulations are glaringly absent. Furtherm ore, the wording in v 4 strongly favors the interpretation th at this law concerns a consecrated animal, n o t any anim al from the flock, for it specifically speaks about “an offering to Yahweh” (‫ ; ק ר בן יהוה‬cf. 1:2) that is presented (‫) ה ק רי ב‬, i.e., offered according to ritual standards. Such language does n o t apply to profane slaughter. T he motivation supporting this law in v 5 has the same viewpoint, for it speaks of elim inating the sacrificing (‫ )זבחים‬of animals in the open field. T he use of ‫ז ב ח‬, “sacrifice,” in this motivation refers to official sacrifices. This law th en addresses the presentation of offerings of well-being, stipulating th at any such offering m ust be presented at an altar consecrated to Yahweh. T he close tie between slaughter and sacrifice in the ancient m ind m ade this regulation necessary. Yahweh wished to m ake sure that the profane slaughter of clean animals w ithout defect in an open field was n o t tu rn ed into a sacrificial ritual, for such practice would be prone to becom ing polluted with pagan customs, such as believing th at these quasi sacrifices placated the spirits o f the field. T he tendency to follow syncretic practice would have been greater in the absence of any priest to officiate. Yahweh definitely wished to prevent the people from thinking that they were m aking a legitim ate sacrifice any time they slaughtered an anim al at any place o th er than a consecrated altar. This interpretation receives some support from the law in vv 8-9. T hat law states that when the people ‫ ע ל ה‬, “offer u p ,” whole offerings or sacrifices, they m ust p erform the sacrificial ritual at the entrance to the Tent o f Meeting. Thus the most normative understanding of vv 3-4 is that the slaughter of any clean domesticated anim al as an offering o f well-being had to be done at a consecrated altar. 4 ‫ קרבן‬is a general term for the various offerings (cf. 1:2). The Tent of Meeting (‫ ) א ה ל מועד‬is identified with the tabernacle of Yahweh (‫ ; מ ש ק יהוה‬cf. 1:1; 8:10). T he latter phrase signals that Yahweh him self is present in the tabernacle as ru ler o f his people. T he case concerns a person who slaughters a dom esticated anim al as a sacrifice away from the altar of the sanctuary. Because that anim al has been

272

L e v it ic u s 1 7 :1 -1 6

slaughtered away from the altar, its blood, which effects expiation, has n o t been cast on the altar. T he casual pouring ou t o f blood is viewed as blood shed in vain. Such an act is declared ‫ ד ם שפך‬, “he has po u red ou t b lood.” This declaratory form ula elsewhere stands for killing a hum an; it suggests a verdict p ro n o u n ced by a court. T he use o f the verb ‫ח שב‬, “consider, reckon,” indicates that a court, perhaps a cultic judicial body, pronounces the sentence (Elliger, 226). This language conveys the seriousness o f this cultic offense. T he penalty for such a violation is that the person is ‫נכר ת‬, “cut off,” from the people. In 7:20 this opaque phrase is taken to m ean th at the person eith er loses his inheritance rights and access to the sanctuary or he is banished. The passive form m eans that God himself executes the judgm ent. M isappropriation of the means of expiation receives such a grave penalty, for a person abuses the only m eans o f finding forgiveness from the holy God. 5 A m ajor purpose o f this law is to stop the random sacrificing o f anim als w ithout regard to place. It covers □‫זבחי‬, “sacrifices,” especially private ones. T he use o f ‫ זבח‬is an archaic way of referring to ‫ זבחי שלמים‬, “offerings o f well-being” (cf. Excursus in chap. 3), which is used in the last sentence of this verse. In this type of sacrifice the blood is dashed against the altar, the fat and the entrails are b u rn e d on the altar, the breast and the right thigh becom e the priest’s, and the rest of the m eat is re tu rn ed to the one who had b ro u g h t the sacrifice for use in a festive m eal (cf. chap. 3). This type o f sacrifice was the one m ost frequently offered by a family o r clan. Because it was a less form al type, people would m ore readily be inclined to offer it away from the altar before the T ent o f Meeting. 6 The reason for slaughtering the animals at the Tent of Meeting is reiterated. It is so th at the priest may ‫ז ר ק‬, “dash” or “throw” (cf. 1:5), the blood against the altar and ‫ ה ק טי ר‬, “b u rn ,” the fat as ‫ ריח ניחח ליהוה‬, “a soothing arom a to Yahweh” (cf. 1:9). T he altar is specifically identified as ‫ מזב ח יהרה‬, “the altar o f Yahweh.” Only here in the sacrificial legislation is the altar specifically identified as Yahweh’s in order to eliminate all private altars. Further, this phrase communicates that in his grace God has provided this piece o f furniture as a place for his sinful people to serve him. 7 A m ajor m otivation for this legislation is to prevent the Israelites from sacrificing to dem ons. The dem ons are referred to by the term ‫שעירם‬, “he‫־‬goats,” i.e., dem ons who were th ought to appear in the form of goats; Snaith ( VT25 [1975] 1 1 5 -1 8 ), however, id en tifies ‫ שעיר ם‬as fe rtility d eities, b u t his p o sitio n is unconvincing. In Isa 13:21 and 34:14 these satyrs inhabit open fields, ruins, and desolate places. Possibly Jeroboam I even had ‫במו ת‬, “high places,” constructed for such dem ons (2 C hr 11:15). T he practice o f this kind o f worship is also attested at the tim e o f Josiah, for in his reform he had the high places to goat dem ons sm ashed (this position is based on reading ‫ה שערי ם‬, “goats, d em o n s,” for MT ‫ה שערים‬, “gates” [2 Kgs 23:8]). T he worship of such spirits was a tyrannical force, binding the people in the chains o f fear and superstitions. These laws were designed to guard the Israelites from becom ing enslaved by such evil practices. T he powerful lure o f this illicit worship is expressed by the phrase ‫ זנים אחריהם‬, “prostituting them selves” or “playing the h arlo t,” with these dem ons. ‫זנה‬, “prostitute,” conveys the nuance th at following such practices tarnishes the p eo p le’s love for Yahweh. T h eir worshiping o th er gods is an act of infidelity like that of an adulteress (cf. 20:5, 6; Exod 34:15, 16; Ju d g 2:17; 8:27, 33). This m e ta p h o r loudly proclaims the exclusive claims o f Yahwistic faith. O ne reason this m etaphor became associated with false worship is that many o f the pagan shrines involved

Comment

273

fertility worship. This language also com m unicates th at the people have to bear sham e for th eir w andering affection. Several prophets em ployed this vivid metap h o r freely in their accusation against the covenant people for forsaking Yahweh, th eir God (e.g., Hos 1-4, 9; J e r 2, 3; Ezek 16, 23; cf. B. W iklander, “‫ זנה‬zcmah” TDOT 4:101-2). T his statute is e n d u rin g for th e com ing g en eratio n s, as th e two phrases ‫ ה ק ת עולם‬, “a perpetual decree,” and ‫ ל ד ר ת ם‬, “to their generations,” convey. Does the phrase “a perpetual d ecree” apply to the im m ediately preceding regulation o r to the laws in this section (vv 3-7) ? T he structural analysis favors taking it as a subscript o f this section; thus it applies to the entire section. 8 -9 T he brief introductory speech form ula stresses that the following laws are for the people. T he first law has the same general in ten t as the law in vv 3-4. It is included in this speech for em phasis and to extend the preceding law in two directions: to o th er sacrifices and to aliens. T he two term s ‫ ע ל ה‬, “whole offering,” and ‫ז ב ח‬, “sacrifice,” are a merism, i.e., two diverse term s em ployed to cover all sacrifices, for ‫ על ה‬is the principal official public sacrifice (cf. N um 28:3-8) and ‫ זבח‬is usually a private sacrifice (cf. Excursus on offering of w ell-being in chap. 3). T he ‫ ע ל ה‬, “whole offering,” receives some em phasis in th at the verb chosen for sacrificing is ‫ ע ל ה‬, “to offer u p .” This em phasis is given because the preceding law focuses on offerings o f well-being; this one includes all the o th e r sacrifices. This law specifically states th at it applies both to ‫ בני ישראל‬, “Israelites,” and to ‫ הגר אשר־גור בתוכם‬, “the resident alien being am ong you.” Since the resident alien is p art o f the community, he has to respect the basic laws pertaining to the cult. H e is to observe the Sabbath (Exod 20:10) and the Day o f A tonem ent (Lev 16:29). An alien is never to m isspeak the nam e o f Yahweh (Lev 24:16) or to offer a child to Molek (Lev 20:2). Moreover, this law hinders a resident alien from producing and spreading pagan worship in the land by his own sacrificial practices. 10 T h ro u g h o u t the an cien t world it was a com m on practice to consum e anim al blood in a variety o f forms. This practice is strictly forbidden in Israel, for both the Israelite and the resident alien (cf. 3:17; 7:26-27; 19:26; Gen 9:4; D eut 12:16, 23; 15:23; 1 Sam 14:32-34). ‫ כ ל‬, “all,” before ‫ דם‬m eans any form in which the blood m ight be consum ed, e.g., as a food itself or in the m eat (cf. Elliger, 227). This law certainly excludes the eating o f any m eat th at has n o t had the blood fully d rained from it. T he penalty for violating this law, being cut off from the community, is strongly underscored, for it is stated twice and in the divine first person (cf. v 4). For the first person usage see 20:6. 11 This verse sets forth both an essential reason and a theological reason for the severity o f the penalty for eating blood (v 10). Because this is the only text in the O T th at comes close to giving a reason why blood effects atonem ent, there is great interest in uncovering its m eaning. T he theological reason is that God him self has bestowed this power on blood. T he introductory words ‫ואני נתתיו לכ ם‬, “I have assigned it to you,” are forceful, introducing a definitive statem ent. Milgrom (SCTT, 97) dem onstrates that ‫נתן‬, (lit.) “give,” with God as subject in the priestly legislation m eans “bestow, give, assign” (e.g., 6:10[17]; 7:34; 10:17; N um 8:19; 18:8, 19). T h at is, blood in itself does not effect expiation, only blood from an anim al sacrificed before Yahweh according to certain prescribed rituals. Moreover, this verse does n o t say that there are no o th er ways for expiation to take place, for o th er texts assign expiating force to

274

L e v it ic u s 1 7 : 1 1 6 ‫־‬

various sacrifices and procedures: a vegetable offering (5:11-12), the oil rite for a person who has recovered from a grievous skin disease (14:15-18), the paym en t o f a coin (Exod 30:15-16), the intercession of Moses (Exod 32:30), and God him self (Pss 65:4 [3]; 78:38; 79:9). Nevertheless, the handling o f blood from a ritually sacrificed anim al is the prim ary m eans of expiation given by God to his people. By m aking this connection Yahweh has graciously given his people a visible way to find forgiveness o f their sins (cf. Schenker, M T Z 34 [1983] 201). The required m anipulation of blood teaches that guilt is n o t autom atically removed; it can be removed only by the participation o f the guilty person in the way prescribed by Yahweh. In fact, in rabbinic thought blood came to be the only means of atonem ent (b. Yoma 5a; cf. b. Zebak 6a; b. Menak 93b). This position is stated in H eb 9:22. T he essential reason is found in the statem ent ‫ נפ ש כלי־בשר דמו‬, “the blood is every anim al’s life force” (v 14a¿7; cf. Gese, Essays on Biblical Theology, 107). ‫ נפש‬has a wide range o f usage in Heb., i.e., “throat, neck, desire, soul, person, self, life” (H. W. Wolff, Anthropology of the OT, 11-25). H ere ‫ נפש‬m eans “life” as in some o th er texts; e.g., 24:17— “whoever kills the life [‫ ]נפש‬of a m an shall be p u t to d ea th ”—and Prov 19:8a— “whoever gets wisdom loves his life [‫( ”]נפש‬cf. Wolff, 1820). H ebraic anthropology locates a p erso n ’s life both in the breath (Gen 2:7) and in the blood. W hen a person ceases to breathe, he dies. Breath, being invisible and intangible, symbolizes the fleeting, mysterious aspect of hum an existence. Blood, on the o th er hand, is tangible. T he ancients observed that as an anim al loses its blood, its strength wanes, and with the continued loss o f blood it dies. T herefore, blood serves as the tangible center of an anim al’s life force. In the words o f von Rad, “It is no t the blood in itself that effects expiation, b u t the blood in so far as the life is contained in it” ( Old Testament Theology, 1:270). Blood also symbolizes a life given up in death. Both o f these m eanings o f blood are present in this text. As for the phrase ‫כל״ב שר‬, (lit.) “all flesh,” it includes every animal. ‫ב שר‬, “flesh,” expresses the bond between hum ankind and anim als (cf. Gen 6:12, 13,17,19; 7:15,16, 21). In addition, the choice of ‫ב שר‬, which m eans “m eat” as well as “flesh,” keeps the passage focused on the issue o f eating m eat with the blood in it. T he crux for discerning the essential reason that blood effects expiation comes in the last sentence o f this verse, which reads ‫ כי״הד □ הוא בנפש יכפר‬, (lit.) “for it is the blood which makes expiation by the life” (cf. D eut 12:23; Gen 9:4). T he phrase ‫בנפ ש‬, (lit.) “in /b y life or soul,” has stim ulated a variety o f interpretations based on the use o f the preposition ‫ ב‬. T he ‫ ב‬may be the beth essentiae or the beth of equivalence. This sentence then is translated: “For it is the blood, i.e., as life force, th at expiates” (Milgrom, SCTT, 96; NEB). In v 14ba it is expressly stated th at ‫ כי נפש כל״ב שר דמו בנפשו הוא‬, “the life of every anim al is its blo o d .” T he use o f the prepositional phrase ‫ בנפש‬in this sentence is, unfortunately, so obscure that it does n o t help the exegesis of the preposition ‫ ב‬in v 11. In fact, ‫ בנפש‬may have found its way into v 14ba from the influence o f v 11. W orking with this m eaning o f the preposition ‫ ב‬, Milgrom proposes a creative in terp retatio n for this verse. H e holds that this reason gives additional support to the law in v 10 against eating m eat with blood in it; this law, therefore, applies exclusively to offerings of well-being (‫ ) ז ב ח שלמים‬, since this was the only kind of offering from which an Israelite was perm itted to eat m eat. In support o f this position, M ilgrom points o u t th at the first law o f this speech condem ns the

Comment

275

im proper handling of an anim al’s blood as “m anslaughter” (vv 3-4). These facts lead Milgrom to conclude that the p ro p er handling o f the blood of an anim al sacrificed as an offering of well-being at the altar expiated the lay p resenter from the guilt o f m anslaughter for having slain that anim al (SCTT, 101-3). T he value o f M ilgrom ’s exegesis is that it carefully considers every phrase in this verse. He correctly notes th at the in ten t o f the biblical au th o r is n o t to present a theory of expiation by blood. If such were the case, that au th o r would have placed this verse close to the front of the sacrificial regulations. A significant problem with M ilgrom ’s position, though, is th at it attributes expiating force to an offering of well-being, which does n o t have that force in the regulation for it (chap. 3) n o r in any o th er passage. Recognizing this difficulty, Milgrom counters by claiming th at the blood o f an offering of well-being does n o t expiate a specific sin, but only the responsibility incurred for slaughtering the animal. But in that vv 10-11 are co ncerned with eating blood of a legitim ate sacrifice, no sin, above all no t m anslaughter, has been com m itted in the legitim ate slaughter o f an anim al (Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 102-3). M ilgrom ’s position has an o th er m ajor difficulty if the interpretation of v 11 as a general principle applicable to sacrifices in general is valid. This broader view finds support both in the general language of the law and in the context. T he preceding law (vv 8-9) concerns all sacrifices because it uses the m erism ‫ ע ל ה‬, “whole offering,” and ‫ז ב ח‬, “sacrifice (of wellb ein g ),” to include every kind of sacrifice (Schenker, M T Z 34 [1983] 209-10; cf. 7:26-27; D eut 12:25-27). In addition, the fact th at the following laws go on to the issue o f eating from non-sacrificial animals indicates th at the handling of blood in vv 10-12 is a general concern, n o t ju st a concern with offerings o f well-being (cf. Füglister, “S ü h ne,” 147). A nother difficulty with this position comes with exegeting the ‫ ב‬as the beth essentiae (cf. GKC §1191), for the existence of such a usage o f the preposition ‫ ב‬is very questionable, as Brichto (HUCA 47 [1976] 2627) points out. Finally, there is Schenker’s argum ent ( M T Z 34 [1983] 209) that since blood cannot be separated from the life, a sacrificed anim al’s blood cannot serve as paym ent for its own life which has been taken. An in terpretation similar to M ilgrom ’s comes from Brichto ( HUCA 47 [1976] 2 8) . He bases his interpretation, however, on taking the m eaning of ‫ כ פ ר‬to be “serve as ‫‘ כ? ר‬ransom .’” V 11 thus m eans that the blood of the slain anim al serves as ‫ כ פ ר‬, “com pensatory paym ent,” in exchange for that life that was taken. According to this interpretation, the taking o f an anim al’s life is a right granted by God, th e creato r o f life, an d can only be d o n e in acknow ledgm ent o f him . Schenker (M T Z 34 [1983] 207-9) rejects this interpretation with five reasons: (1) the preposition ‫ ב‬with ‫ כ פ ר‬gives the instrum ent of, n o t the price of, expiation; (2) blood and life may n o t be separated according to v 11c as B richto’s position requires; (3) if God required a com pensatory paym ent for slaughtering an animal, this dem and would also be needed for wild animals, but vv 13-14 do not make this stipulation; (4) this position requires that the three uses of ‫ נפש‬have three distinct m eanings: “life-essence,” lives of Israelites, life of the slain anim al, respectively, b u t the same word is used to note commonality; (5) as with M ilgrom ’s interpretation, B richto’s explanation applies only to offerings o f well-being, b u t the location o f the verse, as argued above, requires th at it apply to all sacrifices. A nother way o f interpreting ‫ בנפש‬understands the ‫ ב‬to be the beth pretil, i.e., giving the cost o f expiation; expiation then is achieved by the paym ent of ‫ ד ם‬,

276

L e v it ic u s 1 7 :1 -1 6

“b lood.” T he sacrificial anim al’s blood is the ransom required to free the life o f the person who has presented the sacrifice. This position echoes the principle of lex talionis, ‫ נכש תחת נפש‬, “life for life” (24:20). In D eut 19:21 the preposition ‫ ב‬is used in this principle instead o f the preposition ‫ ת חת‬, “in place of.” W orking with this exegesis o f ‫ ב‬, some have claim ed that this verse offers a substitutionary theory o f atonem ent. This theory norm ally requires that the sacrificial anim al b ear the p resen ter’s sin, b u t the nature o f the Levitical sacrificial rituals does n o t support this requirem ent. As argued in 1:4 a p erso n ’s sin is n o t transferred to the sacrificial anim al since it is inconceivable th at the flesh o f an anim al m ade unclean by their sins would be b u rn e d on the altar (cf. Füglister, “S ühne,” 146-47). T h at is, if the sacrificed anim al took on the offerer’s sins, no p art o f it could have been placed on the altar; rath er it would have had to be destroyed outside the cam p as was the case on the Day o f A tonem ent with the sin-laden goat which, because it carried the congregation’s sins, had to be sent into the wilderness (16:20-22). These points ru le against resting an elaborate (penal) substitution theory o f ato n em en t on the pillar o f this prepositional phrase. In a n o th e r position Füglister (“S ü h n e,” 145-46) argues th a t ‫ ב‬is the beth instrumenti, i.e., stating the m eans or the basis by which expiation is achieved. T he advantage o f this exegesis is that it interprets the use o f the preposition ‫ ב‬in line with the majority o f o th er occurrences o f ‫( כ פ ר ב‬Exod 29:33; Lev 5:16; 7:7; 19:22; N um 5:8; “S ü hne,” 147). Füglister (147) then argues th at blood has expiating power because it is an anim al’s life-force, n o t because it symbolizes the anim al’s death. This position needs to be tem pered with the realization th at the blood m anipulated at the altar is blood taken from an anim al in its death; thus it also represents life su rren d ered in death (cf. L. Morris, JT S n.s. 6 [1955] 82; Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 108-9). In any case, blood has cleansing power (e.g., 16:16, 30) because it carries an anim al’s life-force. By purifying the altar o r o th er cultic fu rn itu re polluted by uncleanness released by the p re sen ter’s sin, blood restores its efficacy and grants renewal to the one offering the sacrifice (cf. 20:3; 15:31; Füglister, “S ü hne,” 155-56). T here is yet an o th er im portant elem ent in how blood effects atonem ent. This u n derstanding rests on interpreting the play on ‫נפש‬, “soul, life, p erso n ,” in this verse, n o t on the exegetical force of the prepositional phrase ‫בנפ ש‬, “by a life” (cf. Kiuchi, Purification Offering, 1 06).‫ נפש‬occurs three times: the first usage is general for all life, anim al and hum an; the second refers to hum an lives; and the third refers to the slain anim al’s life. This play on ‫ נפש‬is central to the m eaning o f this verse both because a threefold repetition carries emphasis in Hebrew and because the gram m ar has been stretched to m ake this word play. F urtherm ore, this interch an g e in th e m eanings o f ‫ נפש‬w ould have little significance unless th e anim al’s life had some essential correspondence to the supplicant’s life. W hen a person comes u n d e r the threat of being estranged from Yahweh on account of a sin, th at person (‫ )נפש‬presents to Yahweh a gift, an anim al’s life (‫)נפש‬. Since the anim al’s life has a value analogous to th at of the supplicant’s own life, Yahweh accepts the sacrifice as the basis for m aintaining the divine-hum an relationship. T he words o f Gese (Essays on Biblical Theology, 107-8) are insightful: The decisive factor for the cultic act of atonement is that this sacrifice of life is not a mere killing, a sending of life into nothingness, but it is a surrender of life to what is holy, and at the same time an incorporation into the holy, given expression throughout

Comment

277

contact with blood. By means of the atoning rites in which blood is applied, the nephesh is dedicated to and ‘incorporated into’ the holy. Yahweh accepts th at su rrendered life as a basis for offering forgiveness to the supplicant. Forgiveness frees one from the b u rden and sham e o f a transgression in o rd er to live in confidence before God. In o th er words, the offering o f a sacrificed anim al according to the prescribed ritual establishes the judicial basis for Yahweh to g ran t the p resen ter forgiveness. Kiuchi (Purification Offering, 108) com m unicates this idea a little differently. For him , instead of the anim al dying in place o f its p resenter as held by the usual explanation o f substitutionary atonem ent, the sacrifice dissolves the sin-death nexus (see table from Kiuchi, 108, italics m ine): S in/U ncleanness

........ ►

Sacrifice

Death

Substitution, therefore, is an elem ent in the efficaciousness o f the blood rites in a sacrificial ritual. This position supports the understanding o f the power of blood as a life-force, and it is built on the exegesis o f ‫ ב‬as the instrum ental ‫ ב‬. It needs to be rem em bered that the forem ost issue addressed by this verse is the reason that the blood of an anim al cannot be eaten. Since God has assigned blood as the tangible elem ent in effecting expiation, blood carries the strongest taboo. It may n o t be eaten or m isappropriated in any way. T he n u m ber o f laws against m isappropriating sacred objects to the worship o f dem onic spirits in chaps. 17-20 indicates th at a m ajor reason for this prohibition against eating blood is to prevent any uses of that which is holy in the worship of field spirits and to prevent any attem pt to ingest divine power into o n e ’s body by partaking o f the sacred. T herefore, blood, the tangible center o f hum an life, m ust never be p u t to com m on (‫ ) ח ל‬use (cf. 10:11). It m ust always be handled properly as the exclusive property o f Yahweh, the C reator o f that life. 12 For em phasis this verse gives two prohibitions against eating blood. These prohibitions are accentuated by the opening divine speech form ula ‫אמרתי‬, “I have said.” 13-14 This law addresses the proper slaughter of edible wild animals (‫) צי ד חיה‬ o r birds (‫) עו ף‬. T he blood from the slaughter o f clean gam e is to be ‫שפך‬, “poured o u t,” on the g ro u nd and then covered. Blood left uncovered is thought to cry o u t for revenge (cf. Gen 4:10). T he penalty for eating the blood of any animal, including th at o f wild animals, is the “cut-off’ penalty (‫ ;נכ ר ת‬cf. v 4). W hen a person gives God the anim al’s life-blood in place of his own, that p erso n ’s sins are expiated an d he is forgiven. 15-16 This law regulates eating from any anim al found dead. Two words are used for a carcass: ‫נ ב ל ה‬, an anim al that died o f natural causes or accidentally, and ‫ ט ר פ ה‬, an anim al that had been m auled by an o th er wild anim al (cf. 11:39-40). T he reason eating from these animals makes one unclean is th at the blood of such an anim al has n o t been properly drained from the meat. Any casual violation o f this standard, though, is n o t considered a serious breach of the cultic laws. A guilty party is to wash his clothes and bathe in water and be considered unclean (‫ ) ט מ א‬until evening. T hen he becom es ritually clean (‫) ט ה ר‬. However, if one who has becom e unclean by eating from the m eat o f a dead anim al fails to perform the ritual cleansing, his erro r becom es an act o f deliberate transgression o f the

278

L e v it ic u s 1 7 :1 - 1 6

law about eating blood. As a consequence he has to bear the responsibility o f his transgression (‫ ; נשא עונו‬cf. 5:1). O th er laws in the P entateuch also regulate the use o f dead animals. A priest is expressly forbidden to eat such m eat (22:8; Ezek 44:31). T he law in Exod 22:30(31) expresses great contem pt for the carcass o f a m auled anim al (‫ ) ט ר פ ה‬, saying that m eat from such an anim al may n o t be eaten b u t is to be cast to the dogs. D eut 14:21, moreover, prohibits an Israelite’s eating from an anim al found dead (‫)נ ב ל ה‬, bu t it perm its such m eat to be given to ‫גר‬, “a resident alien,” or sold to ‫נכ רי‬, “a foreigner.” D euteronom y thus strengthens the standard for an Israelite bu t eases it for a stranger or an alien, m aking available to them an inexpensive source o f m eat. These variations in the law on this m atter illustrate how the law was living in ancient Israel; i.e., the application o f standards was m odified or augm ented in different eras as the understanding o f each era sought to fulfill the principle o f law in its own specific ways. Explanation

In this speech both the m aking o f any sacrificial offering away from an official altar and the consum ption of blood in any form were prohibited. An ancient popular practice o f m aking sacrifices in an open field was fraught with the danger o f m ixing pagan practices with a sacrifice offered to Yahweh. For exam ple, to increase the yield o f the harvest some were tem pted to m ake the sacrifice n o t only to Yahweh b ut also to spirits that they thought inhabited the fields. Any such syncretistic practices undercut genuine worship o f Yahweh. F urtherm ore, casual sacrifice would present the tem ptation to m isappropriate an anim al’s blood, primarily by n o t draining fully the blood from the slain anim al with the result that blood m ight be eaten with the m eat. To p u t it an o th er way, these stringent regulations regarding blood sought to elim inate any superstitious practices with blood from arising in Israel, e.g., the practice of eating or drinking the blood of an offering in o rd er that one m ight ingest either spiritual powers or divine life. Given the im portance o f handling an anim al’s blood properly, this legislation required that the blood o f wild gam e be properly drained, and it regulated the eating of m eat from animals that were found dead. This speech, therefore, required that all offerings be b ro u g h t to the sanctuary w here a p riest could oversee the slaughter, m anipulate the blood as prescribed, and b u rn the fatty portions on the altar as a soothing arom a to Yahweh. Blood o f an appropriate sacrificial anim al possessed power, both cleansing and expiating, for it was both an anim al’s life-force and the representation o f that anim al’s life. O n the principle of lex talionis, the ritualistic m anipulation o f an anim al’s blood redeem ed the life of the one who p resented the offering. Since it was God him self who ordained that the pouring out o f an anim al’s blood at the altar was the m eans of expiation, all blood becam e his exclusive property. These laws about the consum ption of blood are the cornerstone of keeping kosher in Judaism . It is no t at all surprising that the practice o f abstaining from any consum ption o f blood becam e an issue for the acceptance of Gentiles in the early church. T he leaders of the church vigorously debated which O T laws the new gentile converts should keep. At the great council o f Jerusalem rep o rted in Acts 15, the council decided to place four abstinences on the Gentiles: idols, unchastity, m eat o f animals strangled, and blood (vv 28-29; 21:25). T he last two

Explanation

279

o f these standards, which m eant that the Gentiles were no t to eat m eat from which the blood had n o t been properly drained and were n o t to eat blood itself in any o f the variety o f ways it was prepared, were grounded on these regulations in Lev 17. In im posing these laws on the Gentiles, the church leaders were n o t only being sensitive to Jewish Christians; they also wished to keep the im portance o f p ro p er handling o f blood before all converts, for Jesus’ shed blood was central to his atoning work on the cross. In the NT Jesus’ death on the cross is often referred to by the phrase “the blood o f C hrist.” This phrase com m unicates that Jesus’ death was far different from an ordinary death; it was a sacrifice m ade to God. T he death o f Jesus is interp reted th en in term s of the OT sacrificial system, for as the writer of Hebrews says, “w ithout the shedding o f blood there is no forgiveness o f sins” (9:22). Because Jesus, the sinless Son o f God, obediently subm itted him self to a cruel death on the cross, his death has secured expiation for all who believe on him regardless of race, sex, or social status (cf. Phil 2:6—11; H eb 5:7-10; 9:14). F urtherm ore, since Jesus was the perfect and the ultim ate sacrifice, the anim al sacrifices prescribed in the OT are no longer required u n d er the new covenant (cf. H eb 9:12). T he NT phrase “the blood of Jesus” thus symbolizes the redem ptive power in h ere n t in Jesus’ work for all peoples (cf. 1 Pet T. 18-21; Rev 1:5; 5:9). Because of his death, all who believe on him find forgiveness o f their sins (Eph 1:7-8; Col 1:14). T hrough Jesus all believers are reconciled to God and rescued from the wrath of God (Rom 5:9-10; Eph 2:13; Col 1:20). In addition, the effect of Jesus’ death is expressed in the language that his blood cleanses the conscience from dead works in o rd er that any person may serve God enthusiastically by showing love to others (H eb 9:14; 10:24; 13:12; 1 Jo h n 1:7; 1 Pet 1:2; 2:24; 2 Cor 7:1; Titus 2:14). T he benefits of having a pure conscience are great; e.g., persons with a clear conscience may en ter G od’s presence boldly to present their petitions (Heb 10:19-22). T he m erits of Jesus’ death also enable believers to successfully withstand attacks from the forces o f cosmic evil (Rev 12:11; cf. H eb 13:20-21). Using vivid imagery, the revelator says that those who have com e through the tribulation are those who have their garm ents purified by the blood o f the Lamb (7:14). From an o th er perspective, ju st as the worship o f Yahweh was to be p ure and undefiled, so too is the worship of God through C hrist (Jas 1:27). Just as Israel was n o t to give any place in h er sacrificial system to placating dem ons, n eith er are believers to carry on worship in a way that m ight give any acknow ledgm ent to dem onic forces o r make light of Jesus’ sacrificial death (1 Cor 10:14-22). A radical difference between the O T and the NT in the symbolic use of blood, nevertheless, arises in the celebration o f the Eucharist. In the OT the partaking o f blood in any form, even blood in meat, was strictly forbidden. This standard, as m entioned above, is still followed by devout Jews. However, in the Eucharist, the m eal that com m em orates the m aking o f the new covenant, believers partake o f the bread and the wine, elem ents that represent the body and the blood of the L ord Jesus (Matt 26:27-28; Mark 14:23-24). By eating these elem ents a believer shares in the benefits o f Jesus’ death (1 Cor 10:16; 11:25; H eb 9:15-22). T he discourse in Jo h n 6:52-59 is amazingly radical in its vivid imagery. Jesus boldly speaks o f eating his flesh and drinking his blood. These words are especially scandalous to devout Jews as they depict the definitive newness of the fellowship between God and hum ans in the new covenant. T he in ten t o f these words in Jo h n is n o t

Leviticus 18:1-30

280

prim arily to offend Jewish listeners, b u t to pronounce boldly that in partaking of these elem ents a believer com m em orates Jesus’ death and enters into the deepest com m union with his Lord. In o th er words, a believer abides in Jesus, and Jesus abides in that believer (John 6:56). Partaking o f the Eucharist, furtherm ore, carries the prom ise of eternal life and participation in the final resurrection (John 6:54, 57).

B.

Law s Governing the Extended Family

(18:1 -3 0 )

Bibliography

Alpert, R. T. “In God’s Image: Coming to Terms with Leviticus.” In Twice Blessed: On Being Lesbian, Gay, and Jewish. Ed. C. Balka. Boston: Beacon, 1989. Bigger, S. E ‘The Family Laws of Leviticus 18 in Their Setting.”JB L 98 (1979) 187-203. Chamberlayne, J. H. “Kinship Relationships among the Earlv Hebrews.” N um en 10 (1963) 153-69. Elliger, K. “Das Gesetz Leviticus 18.” ZA W 67 (1955) 1-24.----------- . “Leviticus 18.” 7XZ29 (1954) 303-6. Epstein, L. M. Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud. HSS 12. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1942; New York: Johnson Reprint Collection, 1968. Fox, R. The Red Lam p o f Incest. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1980. Frymer-Kensky, T. “Law and Philosophy: The Case of Sex in the Bible.” In Thinking Biblical Law. Ed. D. Patrick. Semeia 45 (1989) 89-102. Haas, P. “‘Die He Shall Surely Die’: The Structure of Homicide in Biblical Law.” In T hinking Biblical L a w Ed. D. Patrick. Semeia Ab (1989) 67-87. Halbe, J. “Die Reihe der Inzestverbote Lev 18:7-18.” ZA W 92 (1980) 60-88. Hoffner, H. A., Jr. “Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East.” In Orient and Ocádent. FS C. H. Gordon. Ed. H. Hoffner, Jr. AOAT 22. Revelar: Butzon 8c Bercher; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1973. 81-90. Horton, F. L., Jr. “Form and Structure in Laws Relating to Women: Leviticus 18:6-18.” In Society o f Biblical Literature 1973 Seminar Papers 1. Ed. G. MacRae. Cambridge: SBL, 1973. 20-33. Jasper, G. “Polygamy in the Old Testament.” African Journal o f Theology 2 (1969) 27-57. Jügen, E., and Rüterswórden, U. “Unterweltsbeschwórung im Alten Testament: Untersuchungen zur Begriffs- und Religionsgeschichte des ‫נ‬0 ‫א‬.” UF 9 (1977) 57-70. Kaiser, W. C.,Jr. “Leviticus 18:5 and Paul: ‘Do This and You Shall Live’ (Eternity?).” J T S 14 (1971) 19-25. Kennett, R. H. Ancient Hebrew Social Life and Custom as Indicated in L aw Narrative a nd Metaphor. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy 1931. Repr. Munich: Kraus, 1980. Knierim, R. T h e Role of the Sexes in the Old Testament.” L T Q 10.4 (1975) 1-10. Krebs, W. “Zur kultischen Kohabitation mit Tieren im Alten O rient.” FF 37 (1963) 19-21. Luria, S. “Tochterschánderung in der Bibel.” ArO r 33 (1965) 207-8. McKeating, H. “Sanctions against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society, with Some Reflections on Methodology in the Study of Old Testament Ethics.” J S O T 11 (1979) 57-72. Neufeld, E. Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws: With Special References to General Semitic Laws and Customs. London: Green and Col., 1944. Phillips, A. “Some Aspects of Family Law in Pre-exilic Israel.” VT23 (1973) 34961. Porter, J. R. The Extended Family in the Old Testament. Occasional Papers in Social and Economic Administration 6. London: Edutext, 1967. Rattray, S. “Marriage Rules, Kinship Terms and Family Structure in the Bible.” SBLASP 26. Ed. K Richards. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. 537-44. Richter, H.-F. Geschlechtlichkeit, Ehe u n d Familie im Alten Testament u n d seiner Umwelt. 2 vols. Beitráge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie 10. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1978. Rodd, C. S. “The Family in the Old Testament.” B T 18 (1967) 19-26. Schultz, H. Das Todesrecht im Alten Testament: Studien zur Rechtsform der Motjumat-Satze. BZAW

Bibliography

281

114. Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1969. 130-62. Soltero, C. “Nota crítica a Lv 18,30.” Bib 49 (1968) 370-72. Stager, L. E. ‘The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel.” BASOR 260 (1985) 1-35. Stegner, W. R. ‘The Parable of the Good Samaritan and Leviticus 18:5.” In The Living Text: Essays in Honor ofE. W. Saunders. Ed. D. E. Groh and R. Jewett. Lanham, MD: UP of America, 1985. 27-38. Stendebach, F. J. “Überlegungen zum Ethos des Alten Testaments.” Kairos 18 (1976) 273-81. Tosato, A. ‘The Law of Leviticus 18:18: A Reexamination.” CBQ46 (1984) 199-214. Ukleja, P. M. “Homosexuality and the Old Testament.” BS140 (1983) 259-66. Vermes, G. “Leviticus 18:21 in Ancient Jewish Bible Exegesis.” In Studies in Aggadah, Targum, áfJewish Liturgy. Ed. J. Petuchowski. 1981.108-24. Wenham, G. J. “The Restoration of Marriage Reconsidered.”J/S 30 (1979) 36-40. Wolf, C. Terminology of Israel’s Tribal Organization.”JBL 65 (1946) 45-49. Translation

1Yahweh spoke to Moses: 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: I am Yahweh your God. 3You shall not do according to the customsa of Egypt where6 you dwelt nor do according to the customsa of Canaan to wherec la m bringing you, and you shall not walk by their decrees.a 4You shall doa my lawsaa and keepa my decrees1a to walk by them. I am Yahweh your God. 6You shall keep my decreesa and lawsa6 which a human does and livesc by them. I am YahwehA 6“No onea of you shall approach6 any close relativec to have sexual relations.d la m Yahweh. 7You shall not dishonor your father and your mothera by having sexual relations 6 with your mother; shec is your mother. 8You shall not have sexual relations with yourfather’s wife; she is yourfather’s closest relative. 9 You shall not have sexual relationsa with your sister, either yourfather’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born at home or elsewhere. 10You shall not have sexual relationsa with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, because they are part of yourfamily. 11 You shall not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife,a born of your father; she is your sister. 12You shall not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; shea is a close relative of your father. 13You shall not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is a close relativea of your mother. 14You shall not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife;a she6 is your aunt. 15You shall not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law; shea is your son’s wife. You shall not have sexual relations with her. 16You shall not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; she is your brother’s closest relative. 17You shall not have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter. You shall not marry and have sexual relationsa with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives.h It is a lewd act.c 18Youa shall not marry your wife’s sister as a rival wifeh and have sexual relations with her while the former is still living. 19 “You shall not approach a woman to have sexual relations !with her while she is unclean during her period. 20You shall not have intercoursea with your associate’s wife to become defiledh by her. 21You shall not give any ofayour children to pass 6 to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. Ia m Yahweh:c 22You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; ita is a detestable act6 23You shall not have intercoursea with any animal to become defiledb by it. A woman shall not standc before a beastdfor copulation; e itfg is a confusion.h 24 “Do not defile yourselvesa by any of these ways, because by all these the nations which I am going to drive out before you have become defiled. 25Because the land was unclean, I punished it for its iniquity; the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26Youa shall keep my

282

Leviticus 18:1-30

decrees and my laws. You shall not do any o fh these detestable practices, neither the native nor the alien living among you, 27for the people who lived in the land before you committed all thesea detestable practices so that the land became unclean. 28Will nota the land vomit you out i f you defile ithjust as itc vomited out the nationd which was before you. 29Becausea anyone who does any o fh these detestable practicescd— the persons who do them will be cut off from their people. 30Keep my chargea so that you do not do any o fh the detestablec decreesd which are being practiced before your coming. Do not defile yourselves with them.e I { am Yahweh your God.” Notes 3.a. The terms used for customs and decrees stand before their respective verbs for emphasis. 3.b. ‫בה‬, the prep with a fern pronominal suffix, is the retrospective pronoun for the indeclinable ‫אשר‬, “which/where” (GKC §138). 3. c. ‫שמה‬, “thereward,” an adv of place, defines more specifically the indefinite relative ,‫אשר‬ ‫״‬which,” the two together = “where” in Eng (cf. GKC §138c). 4. a. Three verbs often occur with □‫משפטי‬, “judgments,” and ΣΎΐρπ, “decrees”: ‫עשה‬, “do” (e.g., 18:4, 30; Ezek 5:7; 20:11); ‫הלך‬, “walk in‫( ״‬e.g., 18:3; 20:23; Ezek 5:6, 7; 37:24), and ‫טסו־‬, “keep” (e.g., 18:5, 26; 19:19; Ezek 20:18). Sometimes the verbs ‫ שמר‬and ‫ עשה‬occur together and sometimes they are joined (19:37; 20:8; Deut 7:12), such as ‫שמר לעשות‬, “keep guard by doing” (20:22; Ezek 37:24; Deut 5:1; 11:32). The phrase ‫שמר ללכת‬, “keep/guard by walking,” occurs here (cf. Elliger, 237, n.). These combinations emphasize the diligent observation of the law. 4.b. Cf. n. 3.a. 4. c. ‫משפטים‬, “laws, judgments,” in the priestly legislation often occurs with ‫חקות‬, “decrees,” and it usually follows that term (e.g., 18:26; 19:37; 20:22; 25:18; 26:15; but reverse 18:4; 26:43). This combination occurs frequently in Ezekiel (5:7; 11:12, 20; 18:9; 20:11, 13, 19, 21, 25; 36:27; cf. 5:6; 18:17; 20:16, 24; 37:24). In Deuteronomy this combination appears, but often with the spelling □‫חקי‬, “decrees” (Deut 4:1, 5, 8,14; 5:1, 31; 11:32; 12:1; 26:16; with another word added in the list 4:45; 6:1, 10; 7:11; 26:17; also Ezek 20:18). When ‫משפט‬, “laws, judgment,” occurs alone, it is in the sg (e.g., 5:10; 9:16; 19:15, 35; cf. Num 15:16; 24:22; 35:12; etc.; Elliger, 237, n.). 5. a. LXX reads π ά ν τ α , “all,” before both decrees and laws. 5.b. LXX adds κ α ί π ο ι ή σ ε τ ε αύτα', “and do them”; cf. n. 4.a. 5.c. For MT ‫וחי‬, “and living” (cf. GKC §76i), Sam and Tg read ‫וחיה‬, “and one lives.” Tg adds ‫ בחיי עלמא‬, “by eternal life.” 5. d. LXX adds ό θ ε ό ς υμώ ν, “your God,” as is often found in chaps. 18-26. MT is preferred as the shorter reading. 6. a. Cf. n. I7:3.a. 6.b. Komfeld ( Z A W 87 [1975] 212) points out that an unpublished text reads ‫תקריבו‬, “make to come near,” a hiph in place of the MT qal to emphasize the aggressive action of the offender. 6.c. The prep phrase ‫ אל״כל־שאר בשרו‬, “to any close relative,” is the controlling phrase for the coming series of laws. It stands between the subj and the verb for emphasis. The Eng trans. of these laws is less literal than in the other chapters because of the euphemistic language; as a result the redundant phraseology of the original is lost in this translation. 6. d. ‫ ערוה‬means “nakedness” and is a technical term for the genitals. It stands as acc of ‫גלה‬, “uncover,” to mean “to cohabit” (BDB, 788-89). 7. a. In the series of laws through v 17, the dir obj ‫ערות‬, “nakedness of,” stands first for emphasis. Even though it is definite, it does not have the sign of the acc; this may be because of the crisp archaic construction of these laws. Levine (120) notes that ‫ ו‬on ‫וערות אמך‬, “nakedness of your mother,” introduces a circumstantial clause that further defines the father’s nakedness. 7.b. ‫תגלה‬, “you may uncover,” instead of the expected ‫ תגלה‬here and in vv 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17; 20:29 is explained as a result of Aram influence (GKC §75hh; Joüon §79n). 7.c. LXX reads γά ρ , “for” = ‫ ;כי‬also it reads a w a w on the second occurrence of ‫תגלה‬, “you will reveal.” 9.a. For MT ]‫ערות‬, “their nakedness,” several Heb. mss, Sam, LXX, and Syr read ‫ערותה‬, “her nakedness.” Sun (“Investigation,” 116) thinks that the pi was attracted to the defining appositional phrase in v 9a.

Notes

283

10. a. Horton notes that in this prohibition the dir obj has been reintroduced even though it first stands as a casus p en d en s because “the verb-object relationship has become obscured to the native ear” (“Form and Structure,” 25). 11. a. At this place LXXa adds ο ύ κ ά π ο κ α λ ύ φ β ις , “do not uncover,” making this law conform to the pattern of the twofold usage of ‫ לא תגלה‬, “you will not reveal,” as found in v 7. 12. a. A few Heb. mss, LXX, Syr, and Vg add ‫כי‬, “for.” 13. a. A few Heb. mss and Sam do not have ‫שאר‬, “flesh, close relative.” 14. a. Several Heb. mss and the versions read a w aw on the prep ‫אל‬, “to.” 14. b. Cf. n. 12.a. 15. a. LXX reads γά ρ , “for”; cf. n 12.a. 17.a. LXX and Syr read the third person fern pi suffix; cf. n. 9.a. I7.b. LXX reads ο ίκ ε ΐα ι γ ά ρ σ ο υ e ia tv , “for they are your close relative.” B H S suggests pointing MT ‫שארה‬, “relative,” as ‫“ י שאךה‬her relative”; this trans. follows B H S. 17. c. ‫ זמה‬always carries a bad sense except for Job 17:11. It describes violent, wanton deeds as heinous crimes. It occurs several times for sexual offenses such as adultery (Job 31:11), harlotry (Jer 13:27; Ezek 16:27; 22:9,11; 23:21; etc.), and incest (Lev 20:14); cf. S. Steingrimsson, “DDT z m m ” T D O T 4:89-90. Ezek uses ‫ זמה‬to describe the unfaithfulness of Israel and Judah in order to bring to the mind of his audience the sexual laws of Leviticus. The wording of Ezek 22:9 specifically recalls these sexual laws in Leviticus (Steingrimsson, T D O T 4:90). ‫ זמה‬may be translated “obscene, lewd, repulsive.” 18. a. LXX does not read the initial waw. 18.b. ‫ צרר‬may be a denominative from ‫צרה‬, “rival wife,” meaning “take as a rival wife” (BDB, 865; KB, 991), but this is the only such use of ‫צרר‬. LXXa seems to have read ‫צרה‬, “for a rival wife” (Sun, “Investigation,” 120). Sun interprets ‫ צרר‬as the verb “harass” and translates the line “to harass her by uncovering her nakedness as long as she is alive.” This is an intriguing alternative, but the context demands a more technical usage for ‫צרר‬. 20.a. Orlinsky (JB L 63 [1944] 40) proposes that ‫ שכבת‬means “penis”; cf. n. 15:16.a. This proposal has merit. 20.b. MT ‫ לטמאה‬is a fern inf constr (GKC §45d). The prep ‫ ל‬indicates the results of the action (cf. GKC §114f). 21. a. This is a partitive use of the prep ‫מן‬. It has the sense “even one” or “any” (GKC §119w, n.). 21.b. For MT ‫להעביר‬, “to pass over,” Sam reads ‫להעביד‬, “to serve.”At certain stages of Heb. script, ‫ ר‬and ‫ ד‬are hard to distinguish. LXX may support the variant, for it has λ α τρ 6 ύ 6 ίν , “to worship.” 21. c. In place of MT ‫אלהיך‬, “your God,” LXX reads τ ό ό ν ο μ α τ ο ά γ ω ν , “the holy name,” as in 20:3 and 22:2, 32. LXX seems to have risen from the influence of those texts. 22. a. LXX reads γά ρ , “for” = ‫כי‬. 22. b. ‫ תועבה‬depicts ritualistic and moral behavior that is repugnant. W. F. Albright (From Stone A ge to C hristianity [Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 21957] 423) takes it from Egyptian o fh , “to be pure,” with the opposite meaning in Heb. This term occurs six times in Lev (18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13) for the immoral sexual practices of Israel’s neighbors. It does not appear elsewhere in the priestly material, but it occurs often in Deut, Ezek, and Prov. In Deut several activities are abhorrent or detestable to God: idolatry (7:25; 27:15), eating unclean animals (14:3), sacrificing animals with defects (17:1), human sacrifice (12:31), practicing witchcraft (18:9-14). These activities are infringements against the exclusive claims of Yahweh (Paschen, R e in , 24). Proverbs has a numerical saying that presents seven things abhorrent to Yahweh (6:16-19). Ezekiel uses it for profane action or violation of the sacred order (Humbert, Z A W 72 [1960] 228-29): inordinate sexual acts (22:11; 33:26), idolatry (e.g., 6:9, 11; 7:20; 11:18, 21; 14:6), idolatry under the image of harlotry (16:36, 43, 57; 23:36), immorality (18:12, 13, 24), profaning the Temple (43:8), and violation of sacred ritual (44:6, 7). These perverted actions cause anxiety and disgust (Gerstenberger, T H A T 2:1054). ‫ תועבה‬thus expresses the vile nature of actions and attitudes that are incompatible with the fear of Yahweh. Cf. P. Humbert, “Le substantif to cebd et le verbe U&dans l’Ancien Testament,” Z A W 72 (1960) 217-37; E. Gerstenberger, “‫ תעב‬t cb p i verabscheuen,” T H A T 2:1051-55; T W O T 2:976-77. 23. a. Cf. n. 20.a. 23.b. Cf. n. 20.b. 23.c. Sun (“Investigation,” 122) interprets ‫תעמד‬, “she/you will stand,” as a second person mase sg and repoints the verb as a hiph. This alternative has the advantage of continuing the series of second person forms, but the context does not indicate that these laws primarily regulate illicit sexual behavior that one is forced to perform by another party. 23.d. LXX reads π α ν , “any,” before “beast.”

284

L eviticus 18:1-30

23.e. MT ‫ לרבעה‬is a fem form of inf constr, a form often found with the prep ‫( ל‬GKC §45d). The pointing of MT, however, takes the ‫ ה‬as a pronominal suffix, but B H S prefers to read a fem form as in 20:16. ‫רבע‬, “lie stretched out,” is often used for unnatural cohabitation (BDB, 918; Jastrow, 1444). The inf constr with the prep ‫ ל‬defines the activity more exactly (GKC §1140). 23.f. Sam, some Heb. mss, Syr, Tg”155, and Tg. Ps.-J. read ‫היא‬, a fem pronoun, in lieu of MT ‫הוא‬, a mase pronoun. 23.g. Cf. n. 22.a. 23. h. ‫ תבל‬only occurs here and in 20:12. BDB (117) takes it from the root ‫בלל‬, “mix, confuse,” to mean “confusion,” i.e., “a violation of nature or the divine order.” LXX renders it μ υ σ ε ρ ό ν , “foul, loathsome.” 24. a. This is an example of a hithpael with the ‫ ת‬of the preformative assimilated to the first radical ‫( ט‬GKC §54c). I B H S (§23.6.4a) points out that in regard to a couple of verbs, including ‫טמא‬, “be unclean,” the niph pf and the hithpael impf are employed to supplement or complement one another. 26.a. A few Heb. mss, LXX, Syr, and Vg do not read the pronoun □‫את‬, “you.” This variant resuited from an error of haplography. The use of the personal pronoun underscores God’s calling Israel to obedience. 26. b. Cf. n. 21.a. 27. a. This is a rare spelling of the fem pi demonstrative pronoun as ‫( האל‬GKC §34b, n.). Sam and llQpaleoLev have the usual spelling ‫האלה‬. 28. a. Sun (“Investigation,” 123) takes ‫לא‬, “not,” as an emphatic adv or particle in light of the phrase ‫בטמאכם‬, “in your defiling.” It is also possible to take ‫ לא‬as an asseverative ‫לו‬, “surely.” It is hard to decide between these alternatives; this Eng trans. casts the phrase as a question to maintain the meaning that the context demands. 28.b. This conditional clause is constructed by a prep; it governs the inf constr ‫בטמאכם‬, “in your defiling” (cf. GKC §164g). The pronominal suffix then functions as subj of the clause. 28.c. This is an example of the omission of the personal pronoun ‫ היא‬as subj of a participial clause (GKC §116s), but B H S suggests placing the accent on the penult so that ‫קאה‬, “vomit,” is a third person fem sg pf instead of a fem ptep. 28. d. LXX, Syr, and Tg read ‫הכרם‬, “nations,” as in v 24, instead of MT’s ‫הגוי‬, “the nation.” MT is followed as the harder reading. PIR (188) exegetes ‫ הגוי‬as a collective noun. 29. a. Sun (“Investiation,” 124) takes ‫ כי‬as an emphatic particle “indeed” (KB, 448). The grammar is difficult in any case; possibly this verse has the rhetorical device of aposiopesis. 29.b. Cf. n. 21.a. 29.c. This is a long casus p en d en s that is resumed by ‫הכפשות‬, “the persons.” 29. d. Cf. n. 22.b. 30. a. For MT ‫משמרתי‬, “my charge,” LXX reads rd‫ ׳‬π ρ ο σ τ ά γ μ α τ α μ ο υ , “my commandments.” 30.b. Cf. n. 2l.a. 30.c. Cf. n. 22.b. 30.d. In the constructive phrase ‫ חקות התועבת‬, “the detestable decrees,” the genitive expresses an attribute of the n om en regens (GKC §128p). 30.e. Instead of ‫בהם‬, “them,” a mase pronominal suffix, Sam reads ‫בהן‬, a fem pronominal suffix, to accord with its antecedent ‫התועבת‬, “the detestable things.” 30.f. llQpaleoLev, LXX, and Tg. Neof. have ‫כי‬, “because.” Form/Structure/Setting

T he structure o f this chapter is outlined as follows:I. I. Introductory formula (v 1) II. Speech (vv 2-30) A. Commission to speak (v 2a) B. Speech proper (vv 2b-30) 1. First parenetic section (vv 2b-5) a. Formula of Yahweh’s self-introduction (v 2b) b. Parénesis proper (vv 3-5) 1) Two prohibitions against following foreign practices (v 3)

F o rm /S tru c tu re /S e ttin g

285

2)

Two exhortations to keep God’s laws, each supported by formulae of Yahweh’s self-introduction (vv 4-5) 2. Laws regulating a variety of sexual unions (vv 6-23) a. General law (v 6) b. Two sets of laws (vv 7-17a) 1) Prohibitions against incest (vv 7-18) a) Primary relationships (vv 7-23) (1) With a mother (v 7) (2) With a father’s wife (v 8) (3) With a sister (v 9) (4) With a granddaughter (v 10) (5) With a stepsister (v 11) (6) With a paternal aunt (v 12) (7) With a maternal aunt (v 13) (8) With an aunt, wife of father’s brother (v 14) (9) With a daughter-in-law (v 15) (10) With a brother’s wife (v 16) (11) With a mother and a daughter (v 17a) b) Additional prohibitions against certain kinds of marriages (w 17b-18) (1) Against marriage to a woman and her granddaughter (v 17b) (2) Against marriage to a wife’s sister (v 18) 2) Prohibitions against certain sexual practices and sacrifice to Molek (vv 19-23) a) Against sexual relations with a woman during menses (v 19) b) Against relations with a neighbor’s wife (v 20) c) Against offering up children to Molek (v 21) d) Against homosexuality (v 22) e) Against bestiality, male and female (v 23) 3. Second parenetic section (vv 24-30) a. Parénesis proper (vv 24-30a) 1) Admonition with historical substantiation (vv 24-25)

2) Parénesis supported by threat of expulsion from the land (vv 26-29) 3) Exhortation to keep these laws (v 30a) b. Formula of Yahweh’s self-introduction (v 30b) T he core o f this speech is a legislation o f sexual laws (vv 6-23). It is fram ed by parenetic m aterial warning Israel against following the practices o f h er neighbors and calling h er to be a holy people (vv 2b-5; 24-30). T he legislation consists of two sets o f laws. T he first set prohibits incest with a close relative (vv 7 -1 7a + 17b18), and the second set condem ns a variety o f sexual offenses (vv 19-20, 22-23) plus the offering o f children to Molek (v 21). These laws are directed to the head o f a fa th e r’s house, whose responsibility it is to d eter any infraction o f them (cf. A. Phillips, “Family Laws,” V T 23 [1973] 361). This position accounts for the lack o f penalties with these sexual laws. A b rief description o f the family structure in ancient Israel provides a look at the social setting addressed by these laws. T he basic u n it was a fa th e r’s house (‫) בי ת אב‬, which was com posed o f three to five generations living in close proximity (cf. Gottwald, The Tribes of Israel [Mary Knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1979] 285-92). T he eldest son was head o f his own house, taking over when his father h ad begun to lose strength because of advancing age. W hen this son’s house increased, his

286

Leviticus 18:1-30

brother(s) could set u p h is/th e ir own fa th e r’s house. B rothers continued to live close by. In many families, especially sm aller ones, an elder b ro th e r played a vital role. Gottwald ( Tribes of Yahweh, 285) speculates that a fa th e r’s house could have consisted o f fifty to a h u n d re d people. At the next level was the ‫מ שפחה‬, “an association o f families” (Gottwald, 257). W hen a fa th e r’s house faced hardship, the larger ‫ משפחה‬came to its aid. Several associated families form ed a tribe (‫ שבט‬o r ‫) מ ט ה‬. Do these laws prohibit m arriage to next o f kin, o r do they regulate incest? Both positions have been advocated. The language ‫ לגלו ת ערוה‬, “to uncover naked‫־‬ ness of,” which depicts a driven, passionate sexual encounter, favors interpreting these as decrees about incest (cf. Noordtzij, 183). T he question may n o t be accurate, for this is n o t an e ith e r/o r issue; as Gottwald ( Tribes of Yahweh, 302) points out, prohibited incestuous unions are never legitim ated by m arriage. T urning to look at the laws in detail, there is a general, categorical law (v 6) at the head o f all the laws. It is form ed with second person plural form s in o rd e r to establish a tie with the style o f the preceding parenetic m aterial. T he use o f ‫איש איש‬ addresses all the hearers (cf. H orton, “Form and S tructure,” 30-31; H albe, ZAW 92 [1980] 68). T he m ain v e rb ,‫“ קרב‬draw near,” is m ore generic than the verbs of the incest decrees—‫גלה‬, “reveal,” and ‫שכב‬, “lie”—in order to encom pass both that series o f laws and the second series o f laws, as the occurrence o f this verb in v 19 proves. T he phrase ‫ שאר בשר‬, “close relative,” points to both the incest and the m arriage laws. T he key phrase o f the incest laws, ‫ לגלו ת ערוה‬, “to uncover the nakedness,” is used. This law is form ulated for the heuristic purpose of providing a guideline for the courts in deciding cases o f sexual relationships n o t explicitly covered in the following series o f laws, according to H orton (30). Finally, its being supported by the self-introduction form ula ‫ אני יהוה‬, “I am Yahweh,” establishes an o th er tie with the parenetic framework. Thus this law provides the ideological foundation for the following sexual laws and functions literarily as the head of the list. As for the structure of the individual laws, those in vv 7-16 fall into two basic patterns, according to a study by H albe (ZAW 92 [1980] 69). T he first pattern, A:B::C::B’:A, is illustrated by v 15: A

A

‫ ערות כלתך‬, “nakedness of your daughter-in-law” B ‫ ל א תגלה‬, “do not uncover” C ‫אשת בנך הוא‬, “she is your son’s wife” B’ ‫ לא תגלה‬, “do not uncover” ‫ערותה‬, “her nakedness”

T he prohibition is stated basically in A + B and then restated chiastically in B'+ A'. At C, the center and the point of emphasis, stands a declaratory form ula, functioning as the substantiation for the law. T he laws in vv 7, 11, 14, and 15 are com posed in this pattern, bu t the laws in vv 11 and 14 have been m odified (Halbe, ZAW 92 [1980] 80). In v 11 the identification o f the sister as ‫ מול ר ת אביך‬, “begotten o f your father,” has been inserted in place of the usual B elem ent in o rd e r to clarify the relationship addressed by the decree. T he law in v 14, with the p attern A:B:B':C, is a variation of this pattern, possibly for variety or because of the inclusion o f ‫ אל־אשתו לא ת ק רב‬, “you shall n o t approach his wife” (Halbe, 78-80). T he law in

Form/Structure/Setting

287

v 9, which in its present form does n o t fit either pattern, has been extensively altered to extend the circle o f those who qualify as o n e ’s sister (cf. Halbe, 77-78). T he second pattern, A:B:A, is illustrated by v 8: A ‫ ערות אשת־אביך‬, B ‫ ל א תלגה‬, A' ‫ ערות אביך הוא‬,

“nakedness of your father’s wife” “do not uncover” “it is your father’s nakedness”

Part A identifies the relationship prohibited, while A , echoing the language of A, is a declaratory form ula, serving to substantiate the prohibition. T he prohibítion, at the center, is the focal point. Examples o f this type are the laws in vv 8,10, 12, 13, 16. T he law in v 10 has an expanded form; two relatives are identified, an d this is carried th ro u g h with the plural p ro n o u n ‫ הנה‬in the declaratory form ula. T he position th at these laws are form ulated from two basic patterns does not support Elliger’s analysis (ZAW67 [1955] 6-12) that an original decalogue, which included a law against the union o f a father-daughter after v 9, was then expanded into a dodecalogue with the addition o f vv 13 and 17a o r F eu ch t’s attem p t ( Untersuchungen, 31-32) to find a double decalogue, one in vv 6-16 and a second in vv 17-23. T he absence o f laws p ro h ib itin g sexual relations betw een a fa th e r and a d aughter and between a b ro th er and a full sister is puzzling. Several exegetes (e.g., Elliger, ZAW 67 [1955] 2; Kilian, Literarkntische, 16) have argued that a law about a daughter has fallen ou t after v 9 as a result o f an erro r o f hom oiarchton. Such an erro r could easily have resulted because of the similarity in the form of these laws. In support of this position is the fact that there is such a law in the Code o f H am m urabi. T he absence of a law against such a union in the two o ther sets o f incest laws in Lev 20:11-21 and D eut 27:20-23, however, does n o t support inserting such a law here (cf. Luria, ArOr 33 [1965] 207-8). T he reason for its absence may have been socio-economic; i.e., an Israelite father would not think o f severely reducing the m arriage price his daughter could com m and by having relations with her. While there may be some validity to this proposal for the absence o f such a law, it does n o t account for the absence o f a law against a brother-full sister union. T he proposal that best accounts for the omissions of both is set forth by Rattray (SBLASP 26 [1987] 542; see Figure 2); she proposes th at the phrase ‫ שאר בשרו‬, “his close relative,” which is defined in 21:2-3 as father, m other, daughter, brother, unm arried sister, excludes a m other, a daughter, or a full sister from a m an ’s sexual advances. If this is correct, why then is a m other specifically m entioned in v 7, particularly since incest with a m other is universally ab h o rred and n ot very likely to happen? Rattray’s answer is that the list is headed by the m ost rep u g nant case. But that explanation is n o t the full reason for the presence o f this law. This law no t only excludes sexual relations between a son and his m other; it begins with the phrase ‫ ע רו ת אביך‬, “the nakedness of your father,” even though the inclusion o f this phrase overburdens the structure of this law. This phrase has been placed before the phrase ‫ ע רו ת אמך‬, “the nakedness of your m other,” in o rder that this law may function to classify all the following incestuous unions as eith er a violation o f o n e ’s fath er or o f o n e ’s m o th er (cf. H orton, “Form and Structure,” 29-31). This formulation then gives the law a heuristic function; i.e., it provides a basis for the courts to decide a wide variety of

288

L eviticus 18:1-30

Figure 2. Prohibited relationships according to Lev 18:6-18 (S. Rattray, SBLASP 26[1987] 544).

Form/Structure/Setting

289

incest cases, in H o rto n ’s view (30-31). This un derstanding, in fact, supports Rattray’s explanation that this law accounts for the absence o f laws about o th er incestuous unions that were certainly prohibited in ancient Israel. T he laws in vv 17b and 18 have been added to the series of incest laws, for these two laws deviate from the preceding ones with the use o f the technical term ‫ ל ק ח‬, “take in m arriage.” F urther evidence for this position is found in the change in the n atu re o f the declaratory form ula. T he law in v 17b is supported by the declaratory form ula ‫ זמ ה הוא‬, “it is a lewd act.” Instead o f identifying the offense as a violation o f a close relative, as in the preceding laws, this form ula defines such an act as an ethical violation, as do the declaratory form ulae in vv 19-23. Thus these two laws address a different kind o f relationship than do the incest laws. They have been attached here because they prohibit two types o f m arital alliances th at were close to, b u t n o t precisely considered, incestuous. T he laws in the second set are prohibitions against defiling or perverted sexual acts. A variety o f linguistic threads tie the laws in vv 19-20 + 22-23 together. Both laws in vv 19 and 20 begin with ‫ ואל אשה‬, “and to a wife.” T he laws in vv 20 and 23a have the phrase ‫ ל ט מ א ה בה‬, “for im purity by it,” while the law in v 19 has ‫ ט מ א ה‬, “impurity, uncleanness.” ‫ טמאה‬signals that these prohibitions are against polluting sexual unions. This fact ties this set to the concern against m oral and cultic defilem ent in the parenetic m aterial. T he use o f the verb ‫ ת ק ר ב‬, “draw n e a r” (vv 6, 14), and the phrase ‫ לגלות ערותה‬, “to reveal the nakedness of,” in the law in v 19 forms a b o n d with the preceding laws. T he root ‫שכב‬, “lie,” is a key thread o f the second series. T he verb ‫ת שכב‬, “lie,” occurs in v 22, the n o u n ‫ שכבתך‬, “your seed,” in vv 20 and 23, and ‫מ שכב‬, “act o f lying,” in v 22. F urtherm ore, a progression can be detected in the arrangem ent of these laws, moving from activities that are a distortion o f norm al sexual practice to unnatural sexual practices: sexual intercourse with a wife during m enses (v 19) or with a n eig h b o r’s wife (v 20), the sacrifice o f children to Molek (v 21), unnatural sexual activities, hom osexuality (v 22), and bestiality (v 23). T he declaratory form ulae th at substantiate the laws o f the second series differ considerably from that o f the first set o f laws. T he substantiation or motivation for the laws in the first set is o n e ’s social responsibility. T he laws o f the second set are m otivated by declaratory form ulae that express the defiling, im m oral nature o f these illicit practices: ‫ תועב ה הוא‬, “it is a detestable act” (v 22), and ‫ ת ב ל הוא‬, “it is a perversion” (v 23); ‫ זמ ה הוא‬, “it is a lewd act,” occurs in v 17b. These form ulae in the second series are very strong, for they speak o f the destructive effect such offenses have on the relationship between the people and Yahweh their God. To a m o d ern read er the law in v 21 appears o u t o f place in the second set o f laws (cf. Excursus on M olek sacrifices at 20:2). T h ere are several indicators, though, th at it was form ulated for this location. T he opening phrase ‫ מז ר ע ך‬, “any o f your seed,” ties directly to ‫ לז ר ע‬, “for seed,” in v 20a/3. T he prohibition ‫ ל א תתן‬, “do n o t give,” resounds the prohibitions found in vv 20a and 23. T he strong wording, “profane the nam e o f your G od,” expresses that this activity is even m ore polluting than the o th er offenses in this set and accords with the strong declaratory fo rm u lae o f this set. F u rth erm o re , th e g ro u n d in g o f th e law with the self-introduction form ula “I am Yahweh” increases the weight of this prohibition as well as establishing a tie with the first series o f laws (v 6) and the parenetic fram ework (cf. v 2). T hus the speaker com posed this law carefully to fit this

290

Leviticus 18:1-30

context. T he close tie between sexual offenses and sacrifices to Molek is fu rth er attested by the placing of laws against offerings to Molek ju st prior to a series of laws against sexual offenses in chap. 20. Israel thus m ade an ideological connection between sexual offenses and certain pagan rites. O n the one hand, this activity was destructive to family solidarity like o th er sexual offenses. O n the o th er hand, th at a culture could equate two subjects th at ap p ear so diverse to the m o d ern way o f thinking is attested by the evidence th at the C hiricahua, an American Indian tribe of the Southwest, equated incest and witchcraft as the worst offenses o f the social and the religious realm s respectively (R. Fox, The Red Lamp of Incest, 32-34). In the parenetic m aterial th at fram es the legislation, the first section (vv 2b-5) warns the people n o t to follow the custom s of the Egyptians and C anaanites (vv 2b-3) and exhorts them to obey Yahweh’s laws and decrees (vv 4-5). T heir observance is encouraged with the prom ise o f life (v 5). In the third section (vv 24-30) the focus is on the bo n d that exists between the people and the land. T here are three groups of parenetic statem ents. T he second one leads into the th reat th at Israel will be driven from the land if she disobeys the laws God has given (v 28). This threat becomes the focal point of the parénesis. This is achieved both by position and by the repeated use of three roots that disclose the defilem en t that comes from following pagan customs and practices: ‫ ט מ א‬, “u n clea n ” (vv 24 [2x], 25, 27, 28, 3 0 ),‫תועבת‬, “detestable things” (vv 26, 27, 29, 30), and ‫ קי א‬, “vom it” (vv 25, 28 [2x]). F urtherm ore, the freq u en t occurrence of the form ula o f Yahweh’s self-introduction in the parenetic m aterial (vv 2b, 4b, 5b, 30b) stresses that these exhortations have their authority in Yahweh’s holy character. T he union of past tense and future tense in this parenetic material is intriguing. As it stands, this m aterial addresses Israel both as she is about to en ter the land (vv 2b-4, 24, 30) and as though she is already in the land (vv 5, 25-29; cf. Elliger, 233-34; idem, ZAW&l [1955] 17-23). This tension between the past and the future is a rhetorical device to contem porize the ancient law for each audience hearing this speech (cf. Reventlow, Heiligkeitgesetz, 60-64). Israel is called to obey these laws in the present in light of h e r redem ptive history. T he opening parénesis leads the audience to inquire what laws God wants them to obey in o rder that she m ight n o t be like h e r neighbors. T he legislation at the center answers that inquiry by giving those laws to Israel. T he concluding parénesis motivates Israel to avoid the practices o f h er neighbors with the threat of expulsion for defiling the land by such activities. T he solemnity of the threat is grounded in the rem em brance o f what h ap p en ed to the C anaanites who had occupied the land because of their detestable practices. To vivify this threat, the bond between the people and the land is personified; i.e., indulgence in immoral acts will make the land so sick that it will vomit o ut its inhabitants. Thus the speech is so constructed that it addresses its present audience with the immediacy of obeying these laws given at M ount Sinai. This speech then is for the priests’ oral instruction of the laity. The style o f the speech supports this position. A host of m nem onic and rhetorical devices both facilitate the priests’ m em orization of this speech and serve to im print these decrees deeply in the m inds of the hearers. First, as noted above, the laws are cast in similar patterns. Second, several roots are repeated in a variety of forms: ‫ע שה‬, “d o ” (1 2 x ),‫ ט מ א‬, “defile” (8x),‫ תועב ה‬, “detestable” (5x),‫שמר‬, “keep” (5x),m pn, “decrees” (4x), □‫מ שפטי‬, “laws” (3x), ‫ קי א‬, “vom it” (3x), ‫ ה ל ך‬, “walk, g o ” (2x). Form s of the

Comment

291

term ¡‫ערה ־‬, “nakedness,” occur twenty-one times, and form s of the verb ‫גל ה‬, “uncover,” o cc u r six teen tim es. T h ird , th e re is a fivefold re p e titio n o f th e com m andm ent n o t to behave like other nations (vv 3 [2x], 24, 27, 30). Fourth, the authority of these decrees is strengthened by the freq u en t use of declaratory form ulae. Fifth, the form ula “I am Yahweh” occurs three times (vv 5, 6, 21), and the form ula “I am Yahweh your G od” appears three times (vv 2, 4, 30). T he dates proposed for these incest laws vary widely. Elliger (TLZ 29 [1954] 304) locates the old kernel (vv 7 -1 7a) in a nom adic era. Kilian (Literarlmtische, 28) and Reventlow (Heiligkeitsgesetz, 54) assign the laws to the wilderness period. Bigger (JBL 98 [1979] 198), however, believes that the decrees govern a household, n o t an extended family, and thus com e from a m uch later time when the people lived in smaller groups in an urban setting. These different proposals show th at it is h ard to date ancient material. T he incest laws, however, fit in well with the wilderness period, for, on the one hand, they prohibit relationships that are m entioned w ithout any disapproval in earlier times, such as that between Ju d ah and Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gen 38). O n the o th er hand, the evidence from the rest of the OT, with only a few exceptions, reflects the family relationships desired herein. Therefore, these laws came into existence at the time of Israel’s transition from a tribal com m unity to a nation. Comment 1-2 Yahweh continues to give Moses the words he is to address to Israel (cf. 1:1-2; 4:1-2, etc.). This speech opens with the form ula o f G od’s self-identification: “I am Yahweh your G od.” By calling him self “your God,” God is identifying himself with his people ju st as he did with the patriarchs, Abraham , Isaac, and Jacob (e.g., Exod 3:6,15). This form ula brings to m ind the pream ble to the Decalogue (Exod 20:2; cf. W enham, 250-51), rem inding the audience that these laws have their setting in the covenant at M ount Sinai. Israel is m ade aware that she is obligated to observe these laws because o f the holy character of the God she worships.

Excursus: The Phrase “/ Am Yahweh (Your God)” Bibliography

Elliger, K. “Ich bin der Herr—euer Gott.” In Theologie ais Glaubenswagnis. FS K. Heim. Evang.-Theol. Fakultát in Tübingen. Hamburg: Im Furche-Verlag, 1954. 9-34. Zimmerli, W. “I Am Yahweh.” In I Am Yahweh. Tr. D. Stott. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982. 1-28. Two formulae of Yahweh’s self-introduction, ‫ אני יהוה‬, “I am Yahweh,” and ‫אני יהיה אלהיך‬, T am Yahweh, your God,” occur in clusters in Lev 18-26, Isa 40-55, and Ezekiel. They are scattered through other parts of the Pentateuch and the Prophets, but their occurrences in the poetic books are minimal (only in Pss 46:11 [10]; 50:7; 81:11 [10]; Elliger, “Ich bin der Herr,” 9). In Leviticus these formulae usually come after a law or at the end of a group of laws. The long formula, however, has a lead position one time in the laws on holy living, namely at 18:2. There it functions strategically as a preamble to the laws on holy living, corresponding to its use at the head of the Decalogue (Exod 20:2; Zimmerli, “I Am Yahweh,” 3). An example of the short formula having an introductory use occurs in two critical passages coming in succession:

292

Leviticus 18:1-30

in Exod 6:2-5, where God reveals his identity to Moses, and in Exod 6:6-8, which gives Moses’ commission to tell the people the good news that God will deliver them (Zimmerli, 7-12). Should the long formula ‫ אני יהוד! אלהיך‬be translated “I am Yahweh, your God” or “I, Yahweh, am your God”? Zimmerli believes that the long formula is an expansion of the shorter one ‫ אני יהרה‬, “I am Yahweh,” and thus should be translated “I am Yahweh, your God” (I Am Yahweh, 4, 24). The addition of ‫אלהיך‬, “your God,” emphasizes that Yahweh “stands” in a divine and lordly relationship to “his people Israel” (Zimmerli, 4). The long formula may be further expanded by a variety of relative clauses. In 19:36, a clause recounting the Exodus is attached to the long formula (cf. 25:38; 26:13), and in 20:24 it is expanded with a relative clause stating God’s purpose in giving Israel the land. At times a participial clause is attached; e.g.,‫מקדשכם‬, “the one sanctifying you” (20:8; 22:32; similarly 21:15, 23; 22:9,16). Ordinarily the predicate follows the formula, but in some examples it stands at the head of the formula, throwing the divine name Yahweh into an attributive relationship to the subject, e.g., Lev 19:2:‫ קדוש אני יהרה אלהיכם‬, “I, Yahweh, your God, am holy” (cf. 20:26; 21:8; Zimmerli, 4-6). These self-introduction formulae function to locate the authority of a passage, law, or summons to obedience in the name of the giver of that word, namely Yahweh. That is, a formula raises the authority of a law or a series of laws above the socio-political sphere to the divine sphere. Consequently, in obeying these laws the people express their loyalty to Yahweh. This nuance is evident in the use of the long formula to strengthen decrees protecting the rights of the poor and the sojourner (23:22), for Israel is to relate to these unfortunate people just as her God has mercifully related to an enslaved people (cf. Deut 15:12-15; 16:12; 24:17-22). Furthermore, the use of one of these formulae keeps before the people Yahweh’s holy character as revealed in the words that the formula underscores. Elliger (“Ich bin der Herr,” 10-25) finds a distinction in the use of these two formulae in Lev 18-26. In his analysis, he distinguishes the theological force of the two formulae. For him the long formula, “I am Yahweh, your God,” is tied closely to Yahweh’s saving deeds on behalf of his people (e.g., 18:2-4). It communicates the incomprehensible grace of Yahweh, the God who keeps his promises. The short formula, “I am Yahweh,” calls to mind that Yahweh is the holy, jealous God, who punishes wrongdoing and rewards obedience (e.g., 18:5, 6, 21). It summons obedience to the decrees both by appealing to the worship of the holy God and by instilling fear of being consumed by that holiness. To state this another way, for Elliger the formula “I am Yahweh” communicates Yahweh’s austere, exalted wholeness, which demands true devotion, while the addition of “your God” to the formula contributes the note that Yahweh, the Holy One, is working among his people and for his people so that they may worship him as their God. Elliger (10-16) goes on to identify layers in the text based on which formula is used. Zimmerli, however, finds that this careful distinction between the formulae falters before their indistinguishable uses in several texts; e.g., in Lev 22:33 and 26:45 the short formula, “I am Yahweh,” is tied to affirmations about the Exodus as well as in Exod 6:6-8, a critical passage about the revelation of the name of Yahweh in relationship to his delivering Israel from Egyptian slavery. Zimmerli (“I Am Yahweh,” 3) concludes that there is no distinct pattern for the employment of one formula in preference to the other. As to the original life of the formula of divine self-introduction, Zimmerli (“I Am Yahweh,” 7-13) traces it back to Yahweh’s promise to deliver his people out of Egypt (Exod 6:6-8). In the related passage of Ezek 20:5-7, a historical recounting of this event, the formula is applied to both the Exodus and Yahweh’s giving the law at Sinai. The position of the formula in these two texts, along with the frequent wording in Ezekiel “you will know that I am Yahweh” (e.g., 6:7), indicates that Yahweh’s intent is for his people to come to know him in the fullness of his name. Thus “the self-introduction is

Comment

293

a self-revelation” (Zimmerli, 10); it expresses Yahweh’s committing himself to those to whom he has revealed himself (Zimmerli, 10-11). Applying these insights to Lev 18‫־‬ 26, Zimmerli says, ‫״‬Each of these small groups of legal maxims thereby becomes a legal communication out of the heart of the Old Testament revelation of Yahweh” (12). In the speech-structure of Leviticus, Yahweh speaks directly to a mediator, usually Moses, and that person in turn delivers the word from Yahweh to the congregation in the authority of the formula of Yahweh’s self-introduction; this means that both the mediator and the congregation hear the awesome ‫ אני יהרה‬, “I am Yahweh” (Zimmerli, 12‫־־‬ 13). The role of this formula in Lev 1826‫ ־‬then is to teach that Israel’s distinctive existence as a people rests on Yahweh’s self-revelation of his holy character. 3 Israel is n o t to follow the custom s (‫ )מע שה‬o f the Egyptians n o r o f the Canaanites. W hen they settle in Canaan, they m ight be tem pted to p u t into practice some Egyptian customs that had enam ored them . O r they m ight envy some o f the practices o f the Canaanites so m uch that they would im itate them . T he customs in view are cultic practices rooted in fertility rites and alternative patterns o f family relationships. N or is Israel to walk in the decrees (‫ )חקרת‬of the neighbor nations. “Walk” m eans to follow these decrees in everyday life by inclination (cf. 20:23; 26:3; Ezek 5:6, 7; 11:20; 18:9, 17; etc.). 4 ‫ ־‬5 ‫ משפטים‬refers to laws in general. Israel is to occupy herself with doing G od’s ‫מ שפטים‬, “ju d g m en ts,” and keeping his ‫ ח קו ת‬, “decrees.” ‫חקרת‬, com ing from the ro o t ‫ ח ק ק‬, “inscribe,” refers to definitive decrees, particularly those prescribed by God. T hough n o t lim ited to a single use, ‫ חק‬often stands for a general, categorical decree ( TWOT 1:317; G. Liedke,“‫ ח ק ק‬hqq einritzen, festsetzen,” THAT 1 :6 3 1 3 2 ‫) ־‬. O ften ‫ משפטים‬appears with ‫( חקרת‬e.g., 19:37; 20:22); together the two term s m ean the whole law given by Yahweh. This com m and is stated in v 4 and repeated in v 5 with the verbs ‫ע שה‬, “do, behave,” and ‫שמר‬, “keep,” in o rd er to underscore the call to obedience. T he term ‫ע שה‬, “d o ,” is a very general term , m eaning to act according to these laws. ‫שמר‬, “keep,” com m unicates th at the will m ust be exercised in o rd e r “to d o ” the com m andm ents. This style o f language is loved in Deuteronomy. In v 5 “keeping” is applied to both laws and decrees. These decrees are to be practiced continually so that they may be ingrained into a p erso n ’s way o f living, their walk. T he keeping o f G od’s com m andm ents bears the prom ise o f life (cf. 26:3-13; D eut 2 8 :1 1 4 ‫ ; ־‬also see references to this verse in Ezek 20:11,13, 21; N eh 9:29). Since hum ankind disobeyed God in the G arden o f Eden (Gen 3), they have been denied access to the tree o f life. God has opened a way to life through obedience to the law. W hat is m eant by life here? T he text is imprecise. Placed in the context o f the parénesis (vv 2 4 3 0 ‫) ־‬, it m eans that Israel will have a secure, healthy life with sufficient goods in the prom ised land as G od’s people. Later interpreters (as Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Onq. and early Jewish com m entators like Ram ban [245]) have taken “life” to m ean eternal life. T here is little su pport in the Pentateuch for such a reading of this text. But in the context o f b oth Testaments, G od’s fu rth er revelation in Jesus inform s us that God gives his people the gift o f eternal life in the resurrection at the en d o f the age. This is an exam ple o f how the language o f the OT, while in itself n o t expressing a specific belief, nevertheless prepares the h earer for the fuller revelation o f God. 6 At the head o f the series of sexual laws stands a general law prohibiting sexual intercourse with a close relative, one defined as ‫ שאר בשר‬, “in n er flesh of his flesh.” ‫ שאר‬denotes the flesh with its blood, while ‫ בשר‬refers to the outer flesh and

294

Leviticus 18:1-30

can be a legal term for “a family m em ber” (Wolff, Anthropology, 29). Lev 21:2-3 lists m other, father, son, daughter, brother, and u n m arried sister as o n e ’s ‫שאר‬, “flesh.” This phrase th en expresses the tight bon d am ong family m em bers. ‫ ערוה‬refers to “the p u d en d a.” T here is a distinction between nudity and nakedness. Nudity is carried by ‫ ערום‬and ‫עי ר ם‬, while ¡‫ ערו ד‬and ‫ עריה‬refer to nakedness (H orton, “Form and S tructure,” 20). From an ancient Israelite perspective, the ‫ ערוה‬is the m ost private p art o f the body. It may be properly ‫ג ל ה‬, “exposed,” only in a m arriage relationship. T he im proper or casual exposure of o n e ’s ‫ ע רו ה‬, “p u d en d a ,” causes sham e (Isa 20:4; Mic 1:11). “To reveal, uncover” a n o th e r’s ‫ גל ה ערוה‬, “nakedness,” is to have sexual intercourse with that person. This then is a general law that prohibits sexual intercourse between persons of close kinship. H orton (30-31) points o u t th at it functions as a heuristic rule, providing the courts with a basis for deciding cases that are n o t covered in the following specific laws. Rattray (SBLASP 26, [1987] 542) thus rightly observes th a t this law forbids sexual relations between a father and a d au g h ter and between a b ro th er and a full sister, even though these cases are n o t included in the following laws. A nother foundational reason why a person is n o t to engage in illicit sexual relations is expressed by the use o f the form ula o f Yahweh’s self-introduction, “I am Yahweh” (cf. v 2). By com m itting incest a person dishonors Yahweh, who has set these boundaries. 7 A son may n o t have sexual relations with his m other, because she is his fa th e r’s wife. This inclusion o f the phrase ‫ ערו ת אביך‬, “the nakedness o f your father,” along with ‫ ערו ת אמך‬, “the nakedness o f your m other,” is striking. Besides overloading the stich, the father is n o t im m ediately involved in this specific act. This dual phrase, however, is very im portant, for it begins these incest laws. Both the fa th e r’s nakedness and the m o th e r’s nakedness are the guiding principle for the incest laws, because it was their nakedness, either by blood line or by m arriage, th at excluded a son from sexual relationships with next of kin; in any such relationship he dishonors his fath er or his m other. As for this specific law, the reference to the nakedness o f bo th parents expresses the unity o f a m arried couple—th at they are one flesh (Gen 2:24). T he dishonoring of a wife by u n co v erin g h e r n ak ed n ess is at th e sam e tim e th e d ish o n o rin g o f h e r husband, i.e., the uncovering of his nakedness (Gen 49:4; D eut 23:1 [22:30]). In this view a m arriage bonds a hu sb an d an d a wife m ore closely th an does a b lo o d relatio n sh ip . This law also m eans th a t if a fa th e r dies, a son ca n n o t take his m o th e r as wife to p ro m o te h e r status a n d e n h a n c e h e r security (D eut 27:20). 8 A son may n o t have sexual relations with a wife of his fa th e r’s o th er than his m other, for such an act would dishonor his father (D eut 23:1 [22:30]; 27:20). Keil and Delitzsch (414) take “fa th e r’s wife” to include both an o th er wife in a polygamous m arriage and a concubine. A prim ary m otivation for a son to take over his fath er’s concubines was the desire to usurp his fa th e r’s position, for the taking o f a n o th e r’s concubines symbolized that a usurper had indeed taken over his o p p o n e n t’s authority (e.g., 2 Sam 16:21-22; 1 Kgs 2:22). This custom indicates the gravity o f R euben’s deed in sleeping with Bilhah, one o f his fa th e r’s concubines (Gen 35:22; 49:4). 1 C hr 2:24 reports an exam ple o f a son taking his fa th e r’s wife, b u t see translation o f this verse in R. Braun, 1 Chronicles (WBC 14 [Waco, TX: Word Books Publisher, 1986] 36); in any case this marital alliance is the

Comment

295

exception. Both Ezekiel (22:10) and Paul (1 Cor 5:1-4) denounce such a relationship. See 20:11 for the penalty. 9 A son may n o t have sexual relations with his sister, w hether she is a full sister or a h alf sister by either his father or his m other, either b o rn at hom e or elsewhere (cf. Kornfeld, 114-17). This standard contrasts with the practice of Egyptian royalty in m arrying their own sisters. T he sister is fu rth er identified as b o rn at hom e o r abroad, e ith er to his fa th e r o r to his m other. T he precise m eaning o f ‫חוץ‬, “abroad, elsewhere,” is debated. H offm ann (2:14), in accord with Jewish tradition (b. Yebam. 23a), takes this phrase to m ean a blood sister b o rn out o f wedlock, while N eufeld (Ancient Hebrew Mamage Laws, 197) understands that the law is identifying a stepdaughter who is brought up outside this family as a half sister, i.e., she is raised by h er m o th er’s household. T he dom inant interpretation is th at this is a daughter b o rn to o n e ’s m other in a previous m arriage (cf. Porter, The Extended Family, 3). If this is the case, some posit that the father is living with this wife’s family, while others hold that the father took his new wife’s child ren into his household, and they becam e a part o f his family unit. Bigger (JBL 98 [1979] 190), however, doubts that a family would let any daughters leave with their widowed m o ther because o f their econom ic value. T hough such an occurrence m ight have b een rare, it is conceivable given the com plexity of some family situations. Ruth, a Moabitess, accom panied Naomi, h er mother-in-law, back to Israel (Ruth 1:16-22). A nother position, advocated by W enham (256) and P orter (Leviticus, 146), understands “abroad” to include a half sister who is bro u g h t up outside the hom e. This last position is the m ost favorable, for it interprets each phrase as having legal application. This law thus applies to both full sisters and h alf sisters. For the penalty see 20:17. 10 A father may n o t have sexual relations with a granddaughter, the child of either his son or his daughter. The reason given is th at the daughter and the g ran ddaughter are his nakedness, i.e., they bear his very identity. To abuse them is to dishonor himself. It may seem strange that a g ra n d d au g h ter’s nakedness is h er g ran d fath er’s nakedness, no t h er fa th e r’s. T he reason is that in a fa th e r’s house the grandfather is head of the family. 11 T here have been many attem pts to discover how this law identifies a differen t relationship from those included by the law in v 9. P orter ( The Extended Family, 16) observes that this law is straightforw ard and specific, while that in v 9 is com posed to cover a wide range of circumstances. T he dom inant interpretation o f this law is that a son may n o t have sexual relations with a girl bo rn to his father by a woman o th er than his m other, including a concubine or a m aid (e.g., Rashi, 82b; Keil and Delitzsch, 414-15; H offm ann, 2:16; Porter, Leviticus, 146; Snaith, 86). T he critical issue for interpreting this law is a determ ination of the precise m eaning of the phrase ‫ מו ל ד ת אביך‬, “one begotten of your father.” Does it identify only a consanguineous relationship (Bigger, JBL 98 [1979] 197), or is it used legaily to identify a d aughter b o rn to o n e ’s fa th e r’s wife in a form er m arriage and adopted by o n e ’s father (Dillm ann, 596; Neufeld, Ancient Hebrw M amage Laws, 199; K ornfeld, 119)? T he circuitous p hrase ‫“ בת־־אשת א בי ך‬d a u g h te r o f your fath er’s wife,” in contrast to the direct phrase ‫ ב ת אביך‬, “your fath er’s daughter,” in the law in v 9, suggests that there is a significant difference in the sisters being identified. This phraseology favors the second alternative of the above question. If this interpretation is correct, the phrase ‫ מו ל ד ת אביך‬, “one begotten of your

296

Leviticus 18:1-30

father,” plus the declaratory form ula ‫ א חו תך הוא‬, “she is your sister,” m eans that a d au g hter b o rn to a fa th e r’s wife in a previous m arriage who accom panies h er m o ther to o n e ’s fath er’s house is both legally and socially o n e ’s sister and m ust be treated as a full or a half sister. 12-13 T he circle o f prohibited relationships extends to o n e ’s aunts, on both sides o f the m arriage, for they are close blood relations of o n e ’s parents. This law protecting a paternal aunt rests on the u n cle’s high status in the extended family. In extended families, the h e a d ’s b ro th er often had m ajor responsibility. T he in‫־‬ cident o f Saul’s searching for donkeys that had ru n away sheds a little light on this family structure. His father sent him to look; yet Saul rep o rted back to his uncle (1 Sam 10:14-16; cf. Porter, The Extended Family, 18). Secondarily this law addresses situations in which an uncle and a nephew are o f similar age. It came into force after the m arriage of Moses’ parents (Exod 6:20). Cf. Lev 20:19. 14 C ertain sexual relationships between people related to a family by marriage are p ro h ib ited . A m an c a n n o t have sexual relatio n s with his fa th e r’s b ro th e r’s wife. By such an act he would dishonor his n ear relative whose wife she is. T he scribes teach that this decree applies only to the wife of a b ro th er on the fa th e r’s side o f the family. She m ust be treated like a blood-related aunt. Cf. 20:20 for the punishm ent. 15 A father may n o t dishonor his son by having sexual relations with his son’s wife (‫ ) כ ל ה‬and thus create strife with his closest descendant. At th eir w edding the father blessed his son’s m arriage; now in violating his so n ’s wife he corrupts the very relationship he had blessed. In 20:12 this action carries the death penalty. Ezekiel sternly condem ns such practices during his time (22:11). 16 O ne may n o t have sexual relations with a b ro th e r’s wife because such activity would dishonor his brother. Cf. Lev 20:21 for the penalty. T he practice of levirate m arriage was an exception to this general decree, for it was instituted to perp etu ate the deceased b ro th e r’s nam e and inheritance in Israel (D eut 25:510; cf. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marnage Laws, 43-44). 17 A m an is n o t to have sexual relations with both a m o th er and h er daughter. This prohibition is expanded to prohibit the m arriage of a wom an and one o f h er granddaughters, the child of eith er h er son o r h er daughter. T he reason is th at bo th wom en are o f the same ‫שארה‬, “flesh” (cf. v 6). Given the natural relationship o f the women, this new union would produce bitter tension am ong those who should love each o th er and be on equal footing as wives (Bigger, JBL 98 [1979] 201). O n the one hand, Keil and Delitzsch (415) take this law to specifically exclude relations with a stepdaughter. P orter ( The Extended Family, 20-21), on the o th er hand, applies this law to a situation in which a m an takes a wife whose m other, being a widow, joins this m an ’s family. For exam ple, when R uth m arried Boaz, Naom i probably w ent with h er to Boaz’s household, for the account says that Naomi was nurse to R uth’s child (Ruth 4:13-17). This law specifically forbids sexual relationships with a widowed mother-in-law. H ittite laws perm it a free m an to cohabit with free women, sisters and their m others, in different lands w ithout penalty, b u t n o t in the same place, for that is a capital crime; he may cohabit with sisters and th eir m other if they are slaves, w ithout penalty (#191, #194; AN ET 196). In Israel the violation o f this law is labeled ‫זמ ה‬, “a lewd act.” 18 A m an may n o t m arry his wife’s sister while his wife is living. A nthropologists have fo u n d th at in some cultures this is a p re fe rre d m arriage (Rattray,

Com m ent

297

SBLASP 26 [1987] 539). T he reason given h ere is that he is n o t to make a sister ‫ צ ר ר‬, “a rival wife.” This language recognizes the continual strife between wom en o f the same husband and their rivalry for their hu sb an d ’s affection. Such rivalry could easily rise beyond the po in t of reasonable tolerance when the wives were sisters, e.g., the contention between Leah and Rachel over their husband Jacob (Gen 29:28-35; 30:1-2, 14-24). This decree is in force only while the first wife is living (#194; A N E T 196). Tosato (C BQ 46 [1984] 199-214) explains this law dif‫־‬ ferently. Based on evidence from Q um ran (llQ T e m p le 57:17-19; 66:15-17), he interprets the phrase ‫ אשה אל“ אחתה‬, (lit.) “a wife to h e r sister,” as referring to any two women; therefore, this law is a prohibition against polygamy. Sun (“Investígation,” 119) correctly finds Tosato’s explanation w anting in light o f the use of the term s for relationship in the context of this law. 19 See 15:20; also 12:7; 20:18. 20 Sexual relations with an associate’s wife (‫ ;עמית‬cf. 5:21 [6:2]) are forbidden (cf. Exod 20:14; D eut 22:22). Since such a relationship is n o t with a blood relative, the term ‫ ע רו ה‬, “nakedness,” is n o t used. T he penalty for such a violation is found in Lev 20:10. A dultery is strongly condem ned in the OT. Proverbs 6:32 says, “H e who com m its adultery has no sense; he who does it destroys him self.” 21 Parents are n o t to ‫ ה ע בי ר‬, “devote” or “offer,” any o f th eir ‫ז ר ע‬, “offspring,” to Molek (cf. 20:2-5; 1 Kgs 11:7; 2 Kgs 23:10; J e r 32:35).‫ העביר‬m eans literally “to transfer th ro u g h .” Its use with this repulsive type of sacrifice avoids those term s th at describe legitim ate sacrifices. T he children are sacrificed to Molek. T he exact form o f the sacrifice is debated (see Excursus on Molek at 20:2). Such false sacrifice directly profanes G od’s holy nam e. ‫ ח ל ל‬, “to profane,” is to debase th at which is holy. Since God placed his nam e am ong his people, their practice o f false worship tarnishes G od’s reputation am ong the nations (Ezek 36:20-21). 22 Hom osexuality is forbidden (20:13; cf. Rom 1:27; 1 C or 6:9), being classified as detestable (‫ ; תועב ה‬cf. vv 26, 27, 29; 20:13). Som ething detestable is an activity th at G od abhors. O ne dim ension o f the h o rren d o u s incident re p o rted in Ju d g 19 involved the hom osexual drive of some o f the m en of Gibeah in Benjamin against a stranger. T heir w anton behavior led to their being proscribed by all the o th er tribes. 23 Bestiality is forbidden for both a m an and a woman. A m an is n o t to lie with an anim al, and a woman is n o t to flaunt herself seeking to seduce a beast. T he use o f ‫ר בע‬, “lie down (to copulate),” which occurs in 19:19 for breeding of animals, underscores the animalistic n ature o f such an act. Krebs (FF 39 [1963] 19) argues th at this law is designed to co u n ter rites between hum ans and animals practiced in certain pagan cults o f the A ncient M iddle East, such as the Egyptian cult at M endes (Egyptian D ed et). H e gathers some evidence to prove that such rites took place m ore often than has been supposed. These ritualistic uses of bestiality show th at this law was designed to fulfill the exhortation against following the practices o f the Egyptians and the Canaanites (vv 3, 24). Bestiality would n o t be th at uncom m on in an agrarian society. In fact, H ittite law assigns the death penalty to lying with some animals, cattle, sheep, and pigs, b u t lying with a horse o r a m ule carries no penalty (#187, #188, #199, #200[A]; AN ET 196-97). The myths from U garit re p o rt sexual relations between gods and animals; e.g., the m ighty storm god Baal had sexual relations with a cow in an attem pt to magically escape the tentacles o f Mot, the god o f death and the underw orld (cf. U. Cassuto,

298

L e v it ic u s 1 8 : 1 - 3 0

A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, tr. I. Abraham s [Jerusalem: Magnes, 1967] 290). T he cosmology o f the OT places barriers between the divine realm and the hum an realm and between the hum an realm and the anim al realm ; any m ixing of these barriers is considered unnatural, a confusion (‫ ; ת ב ל‬Exod 22:18[19]; Lev 20:15-16; D eut 27:21). The confusion is both of species and of social roles (Bigger, JBL 98 [1979] 203). Such m ixing is contrary to wholeness and holiness; as M. Douglas states, “holiness requires th at different classes of things shall n o t be confused” (Punty, 53). 24-25 These laws are given in o rd e r to prevent Israel from adopting the various sexual practices of the peoples who inhabited Canaan. These practices defile G od’s people. Israel’s polytheistic neighbors energetically pursued fertility rites to insure the fertility of their fields, flocks, and households. But for Israel a close b o n d exists between hum an behavior and the fertility of the land. W hen the people obey G od’s laws, God blesses the land, and it bears abundantly. But if the people defile themselves by im m oral, particularly sexual, practices such as the form er inhabitants of the land practiced, they will defile the land. T he land will becom e so nauseated by such behavior th at it will vom it out its inhabitants. It is God him self who will adm inister the em etic causing the land to vomit out its inhabitants. Only by getting rid o f that which is m aking it sick can the land recover. This language is picturesque to describe a time of dro u g h t or plague; it m eans that God will punish his p eo p le’s im m oral behavior by w ithholding rain and sending plagues. The crops will wither and vanish. Faced by death, the people will be forced to leave their land in search of food. O r war may be the em etic that God will use. Ironically the very fertility rites the people engage in to increase the fertility o f their land will pollute the land. Israel m ust n o t be deceived by the beliefs beh in d the practices of h er neighbors. 26 Israel can avoid the terrible fate described in the last two verses by following G od’s law. Everyone in h er midst, both the citizen and the alien, is to keep G od’s laws in o rder to preserve the land undefiled. 27-28 This principle of defiling the land and being expelled from the land serves as an apologetic for Israel’s occupying the land of others. T he form er inhabitants have defiled the land by their abom inable practices; now the land is about to spew them out. But Israel too is accountable to God. She m ust guard herself from defiling the land and being spewed out also. 29-30 This principle regarding these detestable practices is applied to individuals. Those guilty of such behavior are to be cut off (‫ )נכ ר ת‬from the people (cf. 7:20). T he doing of G od’s whole law is the best preventive against im m orality and divine punishm ent. Explanation

T he decrees regarding incest and im proper sexual relations prom ote the integrity of the extended family. Since the family was the core block of the covenant community, a solid family u n it was crucial for Israel to be a vital nation u n d e r Yahweh. In antiquity, m em bership in a fa th e r’s house was essential for survival. Only closely knit families could provide food for all m em bers and protect them selves from enem ies and natural forces. Family m em bers had to be free to work together in close relationships w ithout fear of sexual m olestation, and each one

E x p la n a tio n

299

had to respect the m arital bonds of all o th er family m em bers. Thus observance o f these decrees form ulated a basis for family stability and for the protection of the wom en o f th at family. In addition, these decrees guarded the purity o f a family’s lineage. These laws state that no m ale may dishonor an o th er close relative by sleeping with that relative’s m ate. Incest carries the possibility of spawning jealousy and hatred, leading to strife and violence am ong family m em bers. T he account of Tam ar and Am non (2 Sam 13:1-19) bears witness to the disruptive force of incest; strife and h atred reverberated for years in David’s family (2 Sam 13:20-18:33). Thus the penalties for these transgressions are severe, including the death penalty, the penalty o f being cut off by God from his covenant people, and the penalty of dying childless (20:10-21). Even though wom en had less status than m en in ancient Israelite society, this legislation has a high regard for women. W omen are n o t to be the indiscrim inate objects of m e n ’s sexual passion. No, they are hum an beings worthy of respect as persons. A w om an’s dignity, grounded on h er role in the family, was n o t to be violated by the sexual aggression o f males in that household. H er h u sb an d ’s h o n o r was intim ately bo u n d to hers. This is visible in the justification given for prohibiting non-blood close relatives from having sexual unions: such a union dishonors the husband. The h o n o r o f the family resides in the integrity of the personal b o n d between husband and wife, n o t in the wife’s being the hu sb an d ’s property. To dishonor one m em ber of a couple is to dishonor the other. Thus laws of this nature pointed the way for the elevation o f the position and the ho n o r o f wom en in society. While n o t m uch is said about children, the laws about grandchildren indicate th at children are n ot to be abused or m olested. Moreover, the laws against offering children to Molek reveal that children are n o t to be treated as objects that may be used as the parents desire or as expendable in ord er to move the divine world to answer the anxieties and whims of their parents. T here are decrees against abnorm al sexual relationships. Adultery, hom osexuality, and bestiality are forbidden. Such activities fall outside the boundaries of acceptable sexual unions. Such sexual unions are confusing and repulsive. They destroy rath er than enhance hum an dignity before God. These laws also rule against participation in any sort of divination, spiritism, sorcery, o r necromancy. T urning to these dark sources for insight into the future implies th at a person does n o t trust God to m eet his future needs. F urtherm ore, it implies th at God him self is subject to external, im personal forces. Necrom ancy is especially repulsive, for OT belief finds that death is the ultim ate curse, the source o f the greatest defilem ent. To seek spiritual experience by contacting the dead is to deny th at God is the living God (D eut 5:26; Josh 3:10; Je r 10:10; Ps 18:47[45]), the sustainer o f life (Ps 104:30). Conversely, the prom ise of life is the w onderful prom ise of obeying these laws (Lev 18:5). The NT builds on and enhances the goal o f these laws regulating family relations and prohibiting wizardry. The NT prom otes the respect m en have for women and wom en for m en (1 Tim 5:1-2; Gal 3:28). Each believer is to put away lust and prejudice (Col 3:5; Matt 5:28; Gal 5:24; 1 Thess 4:5; 2 Tim 2:22). T he NT teaches th at the way one p artn er treats the o th er directly affects a p erso n ’s spiritual life (1 Pet 3:7). Each believer is called to the highest standard o f self-giving love. This

300

L e v it ic u s 1 8 : 1 - 3 0

standard dramatically affects interpersonal relationships, beginning in the hom e. Wives win their husbands to Christ by a holy, loving disposition (1 Pet 3:1-6). C hildren are to obey their parents (Eph 6:1-3; Col 3:20). Conversely, parents are n o t to abuse or exploit their children as the dark side o f m odern society does. Paul exhorts parents, “Do n o t provoke your children to w rath” (Eph 6:4), for provoking can twist a child’s spirit, u n d erm in in g the developm ent o f a good character (Col 3:21). H usbands are to love their wives even as Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25-27). This exhortation is grou n d ed on the greatest expression o f love ever seen in the world. T he dynamic of love and respect between a husband and a wife builds a solid hom e even in today’s tu rb u len t society. T he church faces a very difficult task encouraging believers to build solid families, for the m odern m egalopolis with its highly m obile lifestyle undercuts the solidarity o f a family. Nevertheless, the church needs to take up this chailenging task with resolve, for a family provides the m ost favorable environm ent for the spiritual and m oral developm ent of believers. T here is also an o th er avenue o f hope. Given the bonding that m em bers in Christ experience, the church itself has the opportunity to becom e a body o f families. By broadening the size o f the nuclear family through the fellowship o f believers, the church will help address some o f the pressing social ills o f m odern u rban society. Since m o d ern society looks at adultery and hom osexuality far m ore permissively than does this legislation, where should the church stand on these issues? In the NT these kinds of sexual unions are still viewed as transgressions o f G od’s law (Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10). Nonetheless, the church needs to show compassion an d concern to any who live by such open or alternative lifestyles (Jude 22-23). It needs to relate to these people ju st as Jesus treated adulteresses. With p atien t tenderness the church can lead those who live by these practices into a new, redeem ed life, a life of holiness (2 Tim 2:24-26). C hange in a redeem ed p erso n ’s lifestyle often takes place slowly; nevertheless, as a person is open to the work o f the Holy Spirit, amazing changes take place (Rom 12:1-2). A nother foundational issue addressed in this speech is the bon d between hum an behavior and the la n d ’s ability to sup p o rt the h um an race. This speech teaches that im moral behavior pollutes the land. T he land will becom e so polluted th at it will n o t be able to support well all its inhabitants. As Leviticus says, the land will becom e so sick from this pollution that it will vom it out its inhabitants. In the O T this m etaphor functions as a strong argum ent against the pursuit of pagan practices that prom ote fertility through sexual rites. Israel’s neighbors believed th at these rites guaranteed the productivity o f their land and their flocks. But for Israel the land is fruitful solely because God blesses it. God blesses it in response to his p eo p le’s obedience. But if Israel turns to follow the defiling fertility practices o f h e r neighbors, instead of m aking h e r land m ore fruitful she will actually defile it. T he land will becom e so defiled that it will no longer support Israel. This understanding o f the relationship between m oral behavior and the lan d ’s ability to su p p o rt a people seems very foreign to us. However, it is n o t as foreign as it appears on first reading. M odern people are learning the hard way that a close tie exists between hum an behavior and the purity of the land. O ut of greed and disrespect people have abused the land, such as by overusing fertilizers and pesticides to produce a valuable crop in abundance o r by stripping the land o f its

Bibliography

301

tim ber and leaving the hillsides desolate. T he results o f these procedures are grievous. T he land loses its fertility. T he water supply is endangered. T he food chain is poisoned. Species becom e extinct. People becom e ill, seriously ill. Only with m uch effort can the ecosystem be m ade pure again. While this O T text does n o t speak o f conservation as such, it does address the issue that there is a close tie between the land and peo p le’s m oral behavior. These two issues touch when sinful attitudes lead to po o r m anagem ent of the ea rth ’s resources. T he m ultiple hazards from the ram pant pollution of the environm ent tell us that the e a rth ’s population is facing several m ajor crises. At the h eart o f these crises lie the hum an attitudes o f greed for wealth and lust for an easy, sensual life. To date we are not willing to have less and pay the price of revam ping o u r m eans of production in o rd er to ensure pure water, air, and land. T he pollution all about us urgendy calls us to repent and take a different course before the planet vomits out the hum an species. In conclusion, the goal o f this speech is life: a long life as a blessing for obedi‫־‬ ence to G od’s laws, a happy family life, and a life supported by a fertile land. This chapter calls on the people of God to be diligent in obeying the divine law. As the people o f God we are to live by the revealed word o f God. This revelation shows the way to life. T h at prom ise comes to its highest fulfillm ent in Jesus who says, “I am life” (John 14:6; cf. Jo h n 10:10). Today the church is called to live a distinct life, a holy life in obedience to God, ju st as Israel was (1 Pet 1 : 1 4 2 ;16‫ ־‬Pet 3:11). This m eans th at believers have to live by a higher standard than do their secular neighbors, a standard constructed on the confession that God is holy (Matt 5:1316, 48).

C.

Laws and Exhortations to Holy Living (19:1-37)

Bibliography

Albertz, R. “Hintergrund und Bedeutung des Elterngebots im Dekalog.” ZAW90 (1978) 348-74. Amusin, J. D. “Die Gerim in der sozialen Legislatur des Alten Testaments.” Klio 63 (1981) 15-23. Auerbach, E. “Das Zehngebot—Allgemeine Gesetzes-Form in der Bibel.” VT 16 (1966) 255-76. Berger, K. Die Gesetzesaulegungjesu: Ihr historischer Hintergrund imJudentum undim Alten Testament. Teil I: Markus und Parallelen. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972. 80-136. Brongers, H. A. “Fasting in Israel in Biblical and Post-Biblical Times.” OTS 20 (1977) 1-21. Carmichael, C. M. “Forbidden Mixtures.” VT32 (1982) 394-415. Davidson, R. “Some Aspects of the Old Testament Contribution to the Pattern of Christian Ethics.” SJT 12 (1959) 373-87. Derrett, J. D. M. “‘Love thy neighbour as a man like thyself?” ExpTim 83 (1971) 55-66. Freedman, B. “Leviticus and DNA: AVery Old Look at a New Problem.” βΙΕ 8 (1980) 105-13. Gese, H. “Der Dekalog ais Ganzheit betrachtet.” ZTK64 (1967) 12138 (=Von Sinai zum Zion. Beitráge zur evangelischen Theologie 64. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1974. 63-80). Gewalt, D. “Taube und Blinde nach Levitikus 19,14.” DBAT22 (1985) 11939. Grintz, J. M. ‘“ Do not eat on the blood.’” ASTI8 (1972) 78-105. Hockerman, Y. “Rebuke of One’s Fellow according to the Bible and Rabbinic Sources” (Heb.). Beth Mikra 28 (1982/83) 140-46. Hogg, J. E. “‘Love thy Neighbor’.” AJSL 41 (1924/25) 197-98. Houtman, C. “Another look at forbidden mixtures.” VT 34 (1984) 226-28. Jagersma, H.

302

L e v it ic u s 1 9 : 1 - 3 7

Leviticus 19: Identiteit-Bevrijding-Gemeenschap. Studia Semítica Neerlandica 14. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1972. Johnson, L. T. “The Use of Leviticus 19 in the Letter of James.” JBL 101 (1982) 391-401. Keller, J. “Theological Linguistics: A Suggestion.”/?te/S 12 (1985) 46-55. Koch, R. “Limitation de Dieu dans la morale de ΓAnden Testament.” StMor 2 (1964) 7388. Kugel, J. L. “On Hidden Hatred and Open Reproach: Early Exegesis of Leviticus 19:17.” HTR 80 (1987) 43-61. Loss, N. M. “A proposito di Lev. 19,19b e di Deut. 22,10.” RBiblt 6 (1958) 361-64. Maass, F. “Die Selbstliebe noch Leviticus 19, 18.‫ ״‬FS E Baumgartel. Ed. J. Herrmann. Erlangen: Universitátsbund Erlanger, 1959. 109-13. Magonet, J. “The Structure and Meaning of Leviticus 19.” HAR 7 (1983) 151-67. Malamat, A. “‘Love Your Neighbor as Yourself’: What It Really Means.” BAR 16 (1990) 50-51. Mathys, H-P. Liebe deinen Nachsten wie dich selbst: Untersuchung zum alttestamentlichen Gebot der Nachstenliebe (Lev 19, 18). Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 71. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1986. Montefiore, H. “Thou Shalt Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself.” N T 5 (1962) 157-70. Morgenstern, J. “The Decalogue of the Holiness Code.” HUCA 26 (1955) 1-27. Mowinckel, S. “Zur Geschichte der Dekalog.” ZAW55 (1937) 218-35. Muraoka, T. “A Syntactic Problem in Lev. xix. 18b.”/SS23 (1978) 291-97. Piper, J. Love your enemies’:Jesus’love command in the synoptic gospels and in the early Christian paraenesis. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1979. 3032, 91-95. Raitt, T. M. “Holiness and Community in Leviticus 19:2ff.” Proceedings, Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies 6 (1986) 170-78. Ratschow, C. H. “Agape, Nachstenliebe und Bruderliebe.” ZST 21 (1950) 160-82. Sampley, J. P. “And the two shall become one flesh”: A Study of Traditions in Ephesians 5:21-33. Society for New Testament Studies. Monograph series 16. Cambridge: UP, 1971. 30-34, 139-41, 158-60. Schwartz, B. J. “A Literary Study of the Slave-girl Pericope—Leviticus 19:20-22.” Scripta Hierosolymitana 31 (1986) 241-55. Schwartz, G. “Begünstige n ich t. . . ?” B Z 19 (1975) 100. Ullendorff, E. “Thought Categories in the Hebrew Bible.” In Studies in Rationalism, Judaism & Universalism in Memory of L. Roth. Ed. R. Loewe. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; NY: The Humanities Press, 1966. 276-78. Vriezen, T. C. “Bubers Auslegung des Liebesgebots, Lev. 19, 18b.” TZ 22 (1966) 1-11. Zimmermann, F. “An Examination of Some Biblical Passages.” JBL 65 (1946) 312. Translation

1Yahweh spoke to Moses: 2“Speak to the congregationa of Israelites and say to them: You will be holy, because 1, Yahweh your God, am holy. 3 “Eacha of you shall revere his mother and hisfather.h You shall keep my sabbaths;c I am Yahweh your God. 4Do not turn to idols,a and you shall not make molten images^ for yourselves; c I am Yahweh your God. 5 “Whenever you saaifice an offering of well-being to Yahweh, you are to sacrifice it so that it will be acceptable on your behalfa 6It is to be eaten on the day that you sacrifice it and the next day; whatever is left until the third day is to be burned with fire. 1I f it is evera eaten on the third day, it is defiled meat; it will not be accepted. 8Whoever eatsa it will be held accountable, because he has profaned that which is holy to Yahweh. That personb shall be cut off from his people. 9 “When you reapa the harvest of your land, you shall not reaph right up to the edges of yourfield, and you shall not gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10You shall not strip a your vineyard bare nor gather the fallen13grapes of your vineyard. You are to leave them far the poor and the resident alien;01 am Yahweh your God. 11 “You shall not steal; you shall not lie; you shall not deceive an associate.a 12You shall not swearfalsely by my name and thus profanea the name of your God. Ia m YahwehA 13 “You shall not exploit your friend, and you shall not rob him. Youa shall not hold back the wages of a hired worker until the morning. 14You shall not curse the deaf; you

N otes

303

shall not put a stumbling block before the blind, but you will feara your God; I am Yahweh.6 15 “You shall not doa injustice in judgment. Youb shall not be partial to the poor norfavor the greats You are tojudge your assodate in nghteousness.16You shall not go about as a slanderera among your relatives;6youc shall notjeopardize yourfriend’s life;d la m Yahwehs 17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall openlya dispute with your associate lesth you be held responsible for sin because of him. 18You shall not seek revengea6 στ bear a grudgec against any of your fellow countrymen. You shall love your companiond as yourselfe la m Yahweh. 19 “You shall keep my decrees.a You shall not mate6 two different kinds of anim alsac You shall not sow your fieldsad with two kinds of seeds. You shall not wear clothinga made of two kinds of yarn.e 20 “I f a man has intercoursea with a woman who is a slaveb betrothedc to another man but who has neverd been ransomed or given her freedom,e there is to be an inquiry. % They shall not be put to death,6 because she has not been freed.' 21He is to bring a reparation offeringfor Yahweh to the entrance to the Tent of Meeting; it is a ram of reparation. 22The priest is to perform the nte of expiation for him before Yahweh with the ram of reparation for his sin which he has committed. He will be forgiven of the sin which he has committed. 23 “When you enter the landa and plant any kind of fruit tree, you are to regard its fr u itb as unharvestable.c You will consider it unharvestable for three years; it shall not be eaten. 24In the fourth year all its fruit isa to be regarded as a holy gift, an offeúng of praiseh to Yahweh. 25In thefifth year you may eat its fruit; thus its yield will be increaseda for you. Ia m Yahweh, your God. 26“You shall not eat anything with the blooda in it. You shall noth practice augury, and you shall not practice divination. 27 “You shall not cut the hair at the sides of your head, and you shall nota trimh the edge of your beard.6 28You shall not make gashesa on your bodies for the dead.6 You shall not tattoo yourselves. I am Yahweh.c 29 “Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute so that the land may not be prostituted and becomefu ll of lewdness. 30 “You are to keep my Sabbaths and revere my sanctuary. I am Yahweh. 31 “Do not turn to ghostsa and do not seek departed spiúts6 to become unclean by them. I am Yahweh, your God. 32 “You are to stand in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly a and fear your God. I am Yahweh.6 33 “When an alien lives among youa in your land, you shall not mistreat6 him. 34You are to treat the alien living among you asa a native. You shall love him6 as a person like you, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am Yahweh, your God. 35 “You shall not do injustice in measuresa of length, weight, or capacity. 36You are to have an honesfr scale, an honesta weight, an honesta ephah,6c and an honesta hin.d Ia m Yahweh, your God, who brought you out of Egypt:e 37 “You shall keep all my decrees and all my laws, and you shall do them. I am Yahweh.”a Notes 2 .a. A few H e b . m ss o m it ‫ כ ל ״ ע ד ת‬, “all th e c o n g r e g a tio n o f ,” w h ile L X X o m its ‫ כ ל‬, “a l l ”; 1 lQ p a le o L e v ap p e a rs to su p p o rt LXX, giving this re a d in g g re a te r w eig h t (PLS, 3 6 -3 7 ). T h is is th e only

304

L e v it ic u s 1 9 :1 - 3 7

p lace th a t ‫ ע ד ה‬, th e official assem bly o f Israel, o c c u rs in a co m m issio n ‫־‬to ‫־‬sp e ak fo rm u la in Leviticus. ‫ ע ד ה‬o ccu rs in Leviticus, th o u g h , a few tim es, e.g., 4 :1 3 ,1 5 ; 8:3-5; 9:5; 10:6 (cf. n . 4:13.a.). S u n ( “Investig a tio n ,” 172) ju d g e s M T to b e a n in fe rio r te x t as a re su lt o f h a rm o n iz a tio n to a m o re c o m m o n read in g . 3.a. T h e subj ‫ אי ש‬, “m a n ,” sta n d in g a t th e h e a d o f a c o m m a n d in th e pi, h a s in d iv id u alizin g fo rce. 3.b. T h e p la c in g o f th e d ir obj b e tw een th e subj a n d th e v erb is h ig h ly u n u su a l. T h e o r d e r o f “m o th e r ” p re c e d in g “f a th e r ” in a n a n c ie n t p a tria rc h a l society is also u n u s u a l (cf. 21:2; 20:19). LXX, T g mss, Syr, a n d Vg in v e rt th is o r d e r possibly to c o n fo rm to th e p re fe re n tia l o r d e r o f listin g a fa th e r first in th e ir resp ectiv e societies. M T is a c c e p te d as th e h a r d e r re a d in g . 3. c. In th e H eb . te x t th e d ir obj co m es first fo r em p h asis. 4. a. T h is te rm fo r g o d , ‫ א ל י ל‬, “little g o d , g o d lin g ,” “was c re a te d as a d isp a ra g in g p u n o n a n d as a d im in u tiv e o f ael [‘th e S tro n g O n e ’] o r 3‘lohim [‘g o d ’] (Ps 9 7 :7 ),” a c c o rd in g to H . P re u ss ( “‫ א ל י ל‬HI,” T D O T 1:285; cf. S. S ch w ertn er, “‫ א ל י ל‬M ¿ /N ic h tig k e it,” 7Ή Α Γ 1 :1 6 7 -6 9 ). T h is te rm is n o t u se d as an adj. In th e p r o p h e ts id o ls a re scornfully rid ic u le d as th e p r o d u c t o f h u m a n h a n d s (Isa 2:8, 20; H a b 2 :1 8 -1 9 ; cf. Ps 9 6 :4 -5 ; cf. Ps 97:7). In th e day o f ju d g m e n t th ese w o rth less o b jects will n o t a ffo rd th e ir w o rsh ip e rs any h e lp a n d will b e cast away by th e ir e n e m ie s (Isa 2:20; 31:7). Id o ls a re w eak, a n d w orsh ip in g th e m is a v ain ex ercise. 4.b. ‫ מ ס כ ה‬, “m o lte n im a g e ,” co m es fro m th e r o o t ‫ נ ס ך‬, “p o u r o u t.” It re fe rs to a n id o l m a d e fro m m o lte n m e ta l e ith e r p o u r e d in to a cast o r o v er a fra m e m a d e o f w o o d o r c h e a p m e ta l (Isa 4 0 :1 9 -2 0 ). S u ch id o ls w ere cast o f g o ld (E xod 32:4, 8 ), silver (Isa 30:22), b ro n z e , o r iro n (cf. 7 W O T 2 :1 3 7 6 ). 4. c. I n s tic h A t h e r e is a c h ia s tic p a t t e r n — n e g a t e d v e r b :o b je c t in f o r m o f p r e p o s i t i o n a l p h rase:: o b je c t:n e g a te d verb. 5. a. T h is verse h as a m o d ifie d chiastic p a tte rn ; it b e g in s a n d e n d s w ith th e v erb ‫ ז ב ח‬, “sacrifice.” 7. a. S am re a d s a qal in f abs ‫ א כ ל‬in ste a d o f th e n ip h ‫ ה א כ ל‬. T h e in f abs b e fo re th e v erb em p h asizes th e v erb al id ea. 8. a. As in 17:14, S am a n d th e v ersions r e a d ‫ א כ ל ו‬, “th e o n e w ho e a ts ”; M T is to b e u n d e r s to o d as a d istrib u tiv e p i (PIR, 1 8 8 -8 9 ). 8. b. In p lace o f M T ‫ הנ פ ש ה הו א‬, “th a t p e rso n ,” L X X re a d s αί ψυχάί ai έσθουσαι, “th e p erso n s w ho e a t ” 9. a. T h e in f c o n s tr h as a d o u b le acc; th e p r o n o m in a l suffix fu n c tio n s as subj o f a te m p o ra l clause since th e in f c o n s tr sta n d s a fte r a p re p ; th e o th e r acc fu n c tio n s as d ir obj. 9. b. T h e i n f + ‫ ל‬sta n d in g as obj o f th e v erb ‫ כ ל ה‬id en tifies th e d ire c tio n o f th e a c tio n (GKC § 1 1 4 m ). 10. a. ‫ ע ל ל‬m e a n s “to g le a n ” a n d m ay b e re la te d to A rab calla, “to d o a se c o n d tim e .” It also m e a n s “to tr e a t severely” (L am 1:22; 3:51). T h u s it m e a n s “to g le a n ” w ith th o ro u g h n e s s (cf. S n a ith , 90L lO.b. ‫ פ ר ט‬o ccu rs o n ly h e r e in O T ; it re fe rs to loose g ra p e s, g ra p e s n o t in a clu ste r, th o se gro w in g sin g u larly o r th o se th a t have fallen off. 10. c. In th e H e b . te x t this c o m p o u n d in d ir obj sta n d s a t th e h e a d o f th is s e n te n c e fo r em p h asis. 11. a. Cf. n. 5:21.b. 12. a. I n te rp r e tin g th e g ra m m a r d ifferen tly , H o ffm a n n (2:39) takes th e n eg ativ e p a rtic le o f th e p re c e d in g s e n te n c e to ap ply to ‫ ח ל ל ת‬: “d o n o t p r o fa n e ” (so GKC §152z). N ev erth eless, it is possible to tak e th e se c o n d s e n te n c e as a re su lt clause. L X X re a d s a p i v e rb a n d a p i p r o n o m in a l suffix o n ‫ א ל ה י‬, “G o d ,” so th a t b o th stichs a g re e in n u m b e r. 12. b. L X X a d d s ό θεός υμών, “y o u r G o d ,” c o n fo rm in g th is fo rm u la to th e lo n g e r o n e f o u n d a t th e b e g in n in g o f th is c h a p te r (vv 2, 3). 13. a. Several H eb . mss, S am mss, LXX, T g mss, a n d Tg. P5.-J. re a d a waw. 14. a. L X X in se rts κ ύ ρ ω ν , “L o rd .” 14. b. Cf. n . 12.b. 15. a. S am h as a sg v erb fo rm , b rin g in g th is v erb in to c o n fo rm ity w ith th e re st o f th e verse. 15.b. A few H e b . m ss a n d Syr r e a d a waw. 15. c. M a g o n et ( HAR7 [1983] 158) h as keenly ob serv ed th a t th e c o m b in a tio n ‫ ד ל‬, “p o o r ,” a n d ‫ ג ד ו ל‬, “g r e a t,” a n u n u su a l p a ir, h as b e e n c h o s e n fo r asso n an ce . U sually ‫ ד ל‬is p a ra lle le d w ith ‫ ע שי ר‬, “r ic h ” (E x o d 30:15; P rov 10:15; 22:16; 28:11), a n d ‫ ג דו ל‬w ith p p , “sm a ll” (1 Sam 5 :9 ;Je r 6:13). T h is is a skilled rh e to ric a l device. 16. a. T h e su b stantive ‫ ר כ י ל‬, “s la n d e re r,” is a n acc u se d to d e s c rib e th e b e a rin g o f th e o n e w ho is ‫ ה ל ך‬, “g o in g a b o u t” (GKC §118q). 16.b. M any H e b . mss, Sam , a n d LX X r e a d a sg n o u n ‫ ב ע מ ך‬, “w ith y o u r p e o p le ,” b u t this p i o ccu rs in 21:1, 4, 14, 15; 23:29 a n d G en 49:29. 16.c. M any H e b . mss, S am mss, Syr, a n d T g mss have ‫ ו ל א‬, “a n d n o t.” 16.d. M a g o n e t (H A R 7 [1983] 158) p o in ts o u t th a t in two p h ra se s o f th is verse c o n s o n a n ts have b e e n a lte r n a te d in successive w ords fo r rh e to ric a l effect. In th e p h ra se ‫ ל א ־ ת ל ך ר כ י ל‬, “you shall n o t go

N otes

305

a b o u t as a sla n d e re r,” ‫ כ‬a n d ‫ ל‬a re in te rc h a n g e d , a n d in th e p h ra s e ‫ ל א ת ע מ ד ע ל“ ד ם‬, “yo u shall n o t je o p a r d iz e a life ,” ‫ מ‬a n d ‫ ד‬a re in te rc h a n g e d . 16. e. Cf. n . 12.b. 17. a. T h e in f abs b e fo re th e v erb stre n g th e n s th e id e a conveyed by th e verb; it a d d s w eig h t to th e an tith e sis b etw e e n th ese two clauses (GKC §113n, p; cf. J o ü o n §125q). 17. b. A few H e b . m ss d o n o t r e a d th e waw. 18. a. Syr o m its ‫ ל א ת ק ם‬, “yo u shall n o t seek re v e n g e .” L X X re a d s ‫ ו ל א‬, “a n d n o t,” as in th e m ajority o f verses in th is series. 18.b. L X X ad d s σ ο υ ή χ ε ι ρ , “y o u r h a n d ,” as subj. 18.c. □p], “tak e v e n g e a n c e ,” a n d ‫ נ ט ר‬, “k e e p , b e a r a g r u d g e ,” o c c u r to g e th e r in N a h 1:2. Keil a n d D elitzsch (421) u n d e r s ta n d ‫ נ ט ר‬, lit. “w atch f o r,” to m e a n in th is c o n te x t “to c h e rish a d esig n o n a p e rso n , o r to b e a r h im m a lic e ” (cf. Ps 103:9; J e r 3:5, 12; N a h 1:2). ‫ נ ט ר‬o ccu rs only h e r e w ith ‫ א ת‬. 18.d. ‫ א ה ב‬w ith ‫ ל‬on ly 19:34 a n d 2 C h r 19:2 (B e rth o le t, 6 8 ). T h e ‫ ל‬h e r e in tro d u c e s th e d ir obj o f ‫( א ה ב‬Jo ü o n §125k; I B H S § 11.2.10g; also 2 C h r 19:2). M athys (Liebe, 4 -5 ) show s ho w so m e a u th o rs like M. B u b e r ( Tw o Types o f F aith, tr. N . G o ld h aw k [L o n d o n : R o u tle d g e & K egan P au l, 1951] 6 8 -7 5 ) a n d E. U lle n d o rff ( “T h o u g h t C a te g o rie s,” 277) in te r p r e t ‫ א ה ב ל‬as h av in g slightly less fo rc e th a n th e u su al ‫ ; א ה ב א ת‬fo r th e m it m e a n s “to have love, to like so m e o n e , to tr e a t k in d ly .” S ince so m e o f th ese w riters h o ld th a t th is p h raseo lo g y m ak es fu lfillm e n t o f th e c o m m a n d m o re possible, M athys a rg u e s th a t th ese a u th o rs a re m o tiv ated in th e ir j u d g m e n t m o re by th eo lo g y th a n by lin g u istic p rin cip le s. B u t som e d istin c tio n n e e d s to b e m a d e , even th o u g h slight, b etw e e n th e se two ex p ressio n s. 18. e. T h e p recise m e a n in g o f ‫ כ מ ו ך‬, “like y o u ,” is d e b a te d . D oes it have ad v erb ial fo rc e a n d th u s m o d ify th e v erb , “love like y o u rself” (so L X X )? I f th is w ere th e in te n d e d m e a n in g , th e e x p e c te d te rm w o u ld b e ‫ כ נ פ ש ך‬, b u t M athys (Liebe, 6 -9 ) a rg u e s th a t th e r e is n o m a jo r d istin c tio n b e tw een th e se two p h rases. A n o th e r way o f tak in g th is p h ra se , a c c o rd in g to M u ra o k a (JSS 23 [1958] 2 9 4 -9 6 ), is as a n o n restrictiv e relativ e clause m od ify in g ‫ ר ע ך‬, “y o u r c o m p a n io n ”; NEB th u s re n d e r s it “as a m a n like yourself.” In a sim ilar vein U lle n d o rff ( ‘T h o u g h t C a te g o rie s ,” 2 7 6 -7 7 ) in te r p re ts ‫ כ מ ו ך‬as a brachylogy, th e ‫ כ י‬, “fo r,” b e in g o m itte d : “fo r h e is as y o u rself.” B u t M athys (9) p o in ts o u t th a t ‫ כ מ ו ך‬d o e s n o t f u n c tio n as a clause; r a th e r it is in a p p o s itio n to th e p re c e d in g n o u n ‫ ר ע ך‬, “y o u r c o m p a n io n ” (cf. J o b 35:8; N e h 6:11; D e u t 18:15). U lle n d o rfF s re a d in g h as m u c h to c o m m e n d it, fo r it a c c o u n ts fo r th e p re se n c e o f th e p h ra se w ith o u t a ttrib u tin g to th e a n c ie n t te x t a n ad v a n c e d u n d e r s ta n d in g o f th e re la tio n sh ip b etw een self-love a n d love o f a c o m p a n io n . M u rao k a also suggests th a t Sir 2 8 :1 -7 m ay b e a n e x p o sitio n o n th is c o m m a n d m e n t. 19. a. In th is verse all f o u r d ir objs sta n d first fo r em p h asis. 19.b. ‫ ר ב ע‬m e a n s “to lie d o w n ” a n d by ex te n sio n “to c o p u la te , b r e e d .” W h e n it a p p e a rs in O T fo r “c o p u la tio n ,” it is u se d fo r a n a b n o rm a l sexual u n io n (18:23; 20:16). R. L. H a rris (2:606-7) p ro p o se s another way to read this line. He assigns to ‫ ר ב ע‬its basic meaning o f “lie d o w n ”: “D o not make your an im als fall d o w n w ith a n u n e q u a l yoke.” T h is re a d in g b rin g s this verse in to a lig n m e n t w ith D e u t 22:10. 19.c. ‫ ב ה מ ה‬is collective. R e g a rd in g su ch b re e d in g , th e O T d o e s w itness to m u les b e in g p r e s e n t in a n c ie n t Israel (2 S am 13:29; 18:9; 1 Kgs 1:33; 18:5, e tc ); it is u n lik ely th a t all th e se m u le s cam e fro m fo re ig n so u rces (1 Kgs 10:25; E zek 27:14; Isa 66:20; cf. B e rth o le t, 68); n o r w ere th ey lo o k e d o n th a t disp arag in g ly . T h is is o n e o f th e m o tiv atio n s fo r H a rris to seek a n o th e r re a d in g o f th is lin e (cf. n. 19.b.). 19.d. In p lace o f M T ‫ ש ד ך‬, “y o u r fie ld ,” L X X re a d s κ α ί τ ο υ ά μ π ε λ ώ υ ά σ ο υ, “a n d y o u r v in e y a rd ,” b e in g in flu e n c e d by th e sim ilar verse in D e u t 22:9. ‫ ש ד ה‬is ta k e n as a collective. 19. e. ‫ ש ע טנז‬, “y a m ,” a u n iq u e fo rm , suggests th a t it is a fo re ig n w ord. A lb rig h t p ro p o s e d th a t it is a n E gy p tian w ord; th a t w o rd h as n o t b e e n a tte ste d , b u t in lig h t o f C o p tic L a m b d in re c o n stru c ts th e E g y p tian as sa fd -n ú b g (T. L a m b d in , “E gyptian L o a n w o rd s in O T ,”J A O S 73 [1953] 155). T h is w o rd a p p e a rs ag ain o nly in th e parallel passage o f D e u t 22:11. T h e re it is a clo th m a d e o u t o f ‫ צ מ ר‬, “w ool” a n d ‫ פ ש תי ם‬, “lin e n .” T h u s it m e a n s c lo th w oven fro m two d iffe re n t m aterials. 20. a. Cf. n. 15:16.a. 20.b. S chw artz ( Scripta H ierosolym itana 31 [1986] 244) p o in ts o u t th a t th e u su a l te rm fo r a slavegirl is ‫ ; א מ ה‬h e re a so n s th a t ‫ ש פ ח ה‬is c h o s e n h e r e fo r a sso n a n c e w ith ‫ ח פ ש ה‬, “f re e ,” a key te rm in th is law. 20.c. T h is is th e o n ly o c c u rre n c e in O T o f ‫ ח ר ף‬, “b e tr o th e d , a ssig n e d ” (KB, 342), i.e., a c o n tra c t o f m a rria g e h as b e e n set, b u t n o t y et e x e c u te d . 20.d. M T ‫ ה פ ר ה‬is a h o p h in f abs; since it sta n d s b e fo re a verb in th e n ip h , it is b e st to r e p o in t it as a n ip h in f abs ‫( ה פ ר ה‬so B H S ; cf. GKC § 1 13w; J o ü o n § 1 2 3 p ). Schw artz ( Scripta H ierosolym itana 31 [1986] 246) states th a t th e in f ab s is u se d to h ig h lig h t th e c o n tra c t. H e g o es o n to claim th a t th e h o p h com m u n ic a te s b o th th a t h e r o w n e r is o b lig a te d to le t h e r b e r e d e e m e d a n d th a t h e r fian cé is o b lig a te d to pay th e p ric e o f r e d e m p tio n .

306

L e v it ic u s 1 9 :1 - 3 7

20.e. ‫ ח פ ש ה‬, “f re e d o m ,” o nly o ccu rs h e r e in O T . Schw artz ( Saripta H ierosolym itana 31 [1986] 247) p o in ts o u t th a t th e u se o f ‫נ תן‬, “give,” w ith this n o u n conveys th e possibility th a t h e r o w n e r c o u ld fre e h e r gratis. 20.f. T h is is th e on ly O T o c c u rre n c e o f ‫ ב ק ר ת‬. If it co m es fro m th e r o o t ‫ ב ק ר‬, it m ay m e a n “inq u iry ” (so R ash i), b u t KB takes it to m e a n “liable fo r d a m a g e s” re la te d to A kk b /p a q ru (fro m E. A. S p eiser, “L eviticus a n d th e C ritics,” Y. K a u fm a n n Jubilee Volum e [1960] 3 3 -3 6 ). M ilg ro m ( Z A W 89 [1977] 43) discovers th a t th e m e a n in g “in d e m n ity ” fo r th e A kk te rm d o e s n o t exist. T h e re fo re , “inq u iry ” is th e b est r e n d e rin g . Schw artz ( Saripta H ierosolym itana 31 [1986] 2 4 9 -5 1 ) rejects M ilg ro m ’s p o sitio n by th e a r g u m e n t th a t th e g irl’s a m b ig u o u s status is “a p rim a ry d a tu m ,” h e n c e n o t verifiable. H e p ro p o se s ‫ ב ק ר ת‬is fro m th e r o o t ‫ ב ק ר‬, “split, d iv id e ,” a n d m e a n s “d isc rim in a tio n , d is tin c tio n .” If M ilg ro m ’s p o sitio n can b e m a in ta in e d , it o ffers th e b e st sense, fo r th e facts o f this type o f case n e e d to b e e sta b lish e d fo r this specific law to b e a p p lie d . 20.g. S am ad d s ‫ ל ו‬, “to h im ”; LX X ad d s α ύ τ ο ΐς ‫־‬, “to th e m .” 20.h . Sam re a d s a sg fo rm ‫ ;יו מ ת‬this v a ria n t levels th e te x t to c o n fo rm to th e sg verbs p re c e d in g a n d fo llow ing th is verb. 20.i. I B H S (§22.6b) id en tifies ‫ ח פ ש ה‬, “f r e e d ,” as a q al pass, th o u g h it is p o in te d as a p u al. 23 .a. LX X ad d s ή ν κ ύ ρ ιο ς ο θ ε ό ς δ ίδ ω σ ιν ν μ ΐν , “w h ich th e L o rd G o d gives to y o u .” T h is is a fre q u e n t f o rm u la th a t h as c re p t in to th e L X X text. C learly th e M T is p r e fe rr e d as th e s h o r te r re a d in g . 23.b. L X X tak es ό κ α ρ π ό ς α ύ το υ , “its f ru it,” as subj o f th e n e x t clause. 23 . c. ‫ ו ע ר ל ת ם ע ר ל ת ו א ת־ פ ריו‬, lit. “a n d y ou will re g a rd its fru it as tru ly u n c irc u m c is e d .” T h e c o g n a te acc u n d e rs c o re s th e u n a c c e p ta b le n e ss o f its f ru it fo r th e c o v e n a n t p e o p le , j u s t as th e u n c irc u m c ise d sta n d o u tsid e th e co v en an t. 24. a. Sam re a d s a p i verb. 24. b. Sam re a d s □‫ ח ל ו ל י‬, “p ro fa n e , c o m m o n ,” fo r M T □‫ ח ל ו ל י‬, “p ra ise .” T h is v a ria n t w ould m e a n th a t this o ffe rin g re n d e r s f u tu re harvests p ro fa n e , i.e., available fo r c o m m o n use (PIR, 192). 25. a. S am m s re a d s ‫ ל א ס י ף‬, “to g a th e r ,” in p lace o f M T ‫ ל ה ו ס י ף‬, “to a d d .” E llig er (261) p re fe rs this v arian t, o r h e suggests th a t M T is a sp e llin g v a ria n t fo r ‫ א ס ף‬. H ow ever, th e p ro m is e o f in c re a se fo r o b se rv in g laws th a t re stric t access to fo o d o ccu rs elsew h ere, as in 25:18-22. 26. a. F o r M T Q T T ^ , “o n th e b lo o d ,” L X X re a d s ε π ί τ ω ν όρ εω ν = □‫ ע ל ״ ה ר‬, “o n th e m o u n ta in s ” (cf. E zek 18:6, 11, 15; 22:9). T h is v a ria n t is attractive, fo r th e Israelites w o u ld go o u t to th e m o u n ta in to w o rsh ip o th e r g o d s a n d spirits. M T m ay elliptically d e sc rib e a cultic p ra c tic e , b u t th e m e a n in g o f th e id io m h as n o t b e e n p reserv ed . 26. b. Tw o H e b . m ss, S am , a n d L X X r e a d ‫ ו ל א‬, “a n d n o t .” T h is v a ria n t su p p o rts th e a lte r n a te re a d in g in n. 26.a., fo r it m ak es a series o u t o f th e verse r a th e r th a n two d istin c t ideas. 27. a. A H e b . m s, Sam , a c o u p le o f L X X m ss, T g, a n d Vg re a d ‫ ו ל א‬, “a n d n o t .” Cf. n. 18.a. 27. b. Sam , LXX, Syr, a n d T g have a p i v erb a n d a p i p r o n o m in a l suffix o n ‫ ז ק ן‬, “b e a r d .” Tg. Onq. a g rees w ith M T. T h is c h a n g e ag rees w ith th e pis in th e first stich. 28. a. Sam re a d s ‫ ;ו ש ר ט ה‬cf. 21:5. T h e d ir obj co m es first fo r em p h asis. 28.b. In a few texts, ‫ נפ ש‬m e a n s “a d e c e a se d p e r s o n .” O rig in ally th e p h ra se was ‫ נ פ ש מ ת‬, “a d e a d p e r s o n ” (N u m 6:6), a n d th e n ‫ נפ ש‬was u se d elliptically fo r th is ex p re ssio n (21:1; 22:4; N u m 5:2; 6:11; 9:10; H a g 2:13; BDB, “4 ‫ נפ ש‬.C.15,” 660). 28.c. A few H eb . m ss, LXX, a n d Syr a d d □‫ א ל ה י ס‬, “y o u r G o d ,” as in n. 12.b. 31.a. T h e id e n tific a tio n o f ‫ או ב‬has n o t b e e n se ttled . S om e id en tify it w ith ‫ א ו ב‬, “a b o ttle m a d e o u t o f sk in ” (e.g., J o b 32:19). W o rk in g fro m this etym ology, so m e p o stu la te th a t v e n trilo q u ism was a te c h n iq u e e m p lo y ed in seances. H o ffn e r ( “S e c o n d M ille n n iu m A n te c e d e n ts to th e H e b re w ‫כ‬ob,” J B L 86 (1 9 6 7 ) 3 8 5 -4 0 1 ; “‫ א ו ב‬cóbh," T D O T 1 :1 3 0 -3 4 ) p u ts f o r t h th e view t h a t ‫ א ו ב‬is “a n o n S em itic m ig ra to ry w o rd ”: a p tu in Akk, a-a-bi in H ittite , yeb\Vi U g a r m e a n “sacrificial p it.” H ittite ritu a l te x ts o ffe r in s ig h t in to h o w su c h p its w e re u se d . A t a site c h o s e n by th e g o d s, a p it was d u g . O b la tio n s o f a v ariety o f s u b s ta n c e s su c h as c h e e s e , b u tte r , a m ix tu re o f m ilk a n d h o n e y , oil, w ine, o r b lo o d fro m a sacrifice w ere p o u r e d in to th e p it a lo n g w ith gifts o f jew elry, o b jects such as a silver m o d e l o f a n e a r, a n d a re p lic a o f a la d d e r ( T D O T 1:132). T h e se o b la tio n s s o u g h t to e n tic e a n d facilitate th e c o m in g u p o f ghosts. S uch a ritu a l was p e r fo r m e d a t n ig h t. T h e p r e fe rr e d sacrifices w ere b lack an im als, especially pigs a n d dogs. A c c o rd in g to H o ffn e r ( T D O T 1:133), ‫או ב‬ h as th re e uses in th e O T : (1) a p it by w h ich th e d e c e a se d a re called u p (1 Sam 2 8 :7 -8 ), (2) th e d e c e a se d g h o st itself (Isa 29:4), a n d (3) a p e rso n skilled in callin g u p th e d e c e a se d fo r sean ces, i.e., a n e c r o m a n c e r (h ere ; 20:6, 27; D e u t 18:11; 1 Sam 28:3, 9; 2 Kgs 21:6; 23:24; 2 C h r 33:6; Isa 8:19). J . L u st ( “O n W izard s a n d P r o p h e ts ,” V T S u p 26 [1974] 1 3 3 -4 2 ) a c c e p ts H o f f n e r ’s d e s c rip tio n o f th e p r a c tic e o f c a llin g u p d e p a r t e d s p irits th r o u g h s a c re d p its, b u t h e d is p u te s H o f f n e r ’s d e s c r ip tio n o f th e e ty m o lo g y o f ‫ א ו ב‬. H e ta k e s ‫ א ו ב‬f ro m ‫ א ב‬, “f a t h e r , ” to m e a n “s p ir it o f a

F o rm /S tru c tu re ,/S e ttin g

307

d e c e a se d f a th e r ” fo r th a t is w h a t th e p e o p le seek o u t in o r d e r to divine fro m a d e p a r te d a n cesto r. T h e n ‫ או ב‬ca n m e a n “g h o s t” o r “a n im a g e ” r e p re s e n tin g th e g h o st (V T Sup 26 [1974] 137). L u st’s view h a s m u c h to c o m m e n d it. It is th a t th e te r m re fe rs b o th to th e g h o s t a n d to th e p e r s o n skilled in b rin g in g u p th e g h o st, i.e., a n e c ro m a n c e r (in 20:27 ‫ או ב‬clearly h as th e la tte r m e a n in g , w h ile in th is verse it c o u ld b e e ith e r o n e ) . W ith th e v e rb ‫ פ נ ה‬, “tu r n t o ,” h e r e a n d in 20:6 th e fo c u s o f th e p a ssa g e is o n c o m m u n ic a tin g w ith g h o s ts a n d d e p a r t e d sp irits, n o t th e m e d iu m p e r se, so it is r e n d e r e d “g h o s t ” h e r e . O f c o u r s e , t h e d is t i n c t i o n w o u ld n o t b e t h a t g r e a t f o r a n c i e n t p e o p le , f o r to c o m m u n ic a te w ith t h e d e a d th e y w o u ld h a v e to g o t h r o u g h a m e d iu m . 31. b. ‫ י ד עוני‬co m es fro m th e r o o t ‫ י ד ע‬, “k n o w .” It is variously re n d e r e d : “m a g ic ia n ” (JB), “sp iritist” (NIV), “w izard ” (KJV), “s o r c e r e r ” (JB in Isa 19:3), a n d “fam iliar s p irit” (NEB in Isa 8:19). T h e fact th a t it always o ccu rs w ith ‫ א ו ב‬, “m e d iu m , g h o s t,” a n d th a t it sta n d s in c o n te x ts o f c o n s u ltin g th e d e a d (e.g., Isa 8:19; 19:3) in d ic a te s th a t it is a te c h n ic a l te rm fo r o n e w h o p ra c tic e s n e c ro m a n c y . T h e c o n stru etio n o f th e n a m e fo r a spiritist fro m th e r o o t ‫ י ד ע‬suggests th a t such a p e rs o n was view ed as e ith e r havin g g re a t skill to p e rfo rm su ch a n ex ercise o r h a d a close a c q u a in ta n c e w ith a d e p a r te d spirit. By e x te n s io n th is te rm m ay re fe r to th e d e p a r te d sp irit itself. 32. a. T h e first stich is chiastically o rd e re d : p r e p p h ra se :v e rb ::v e rb :p re p p h ra se . 32. b. Cf. n. 12.b. A c o u p le o f L X X m ss a d d b Θεός σ ο υ , “y o u r G o d .” 33. a. A H e b . m s, Sam , a n d th e versions re a d th e p i p r o n o u n ‫ א ת כ ם‬, “y o u ,” as in th e sim ilar p h ra se in v 34; th is v a ria n t m ak es this fo rm p a ra lle l to th e follow ing ‫ ב א ר צ כ ם‬, “in y o u r la n d .” 33. b. ‫ ינה‬m e a n s “o p p ress, m a ltre a t, take ad v an tag e o f ’ (cf. D e u t 2 3 :1 7 [1 6 ]). M ost o ften th e objects o f th is v erb a re th e p o o r, th e n eed y , o rp h a n s, widows, a n d alien s (25:14, 17; E x o d 2 2 :2 0 [2 1 ];J e r 22:3; E zek 18:12, 16; 22:7, 29). Z e p h a n ia h calls Je ru s a le m “th e o p p re ss in g city” (3:1). 34. a. T h e p r e p ‫ כ‬, “lik e ,” conveys th a t “th e a g r e e m e n t b etw e e n th e th in g s c o m p a re d is c o m p le te ” (IB H S § 1 1.2.9b). 34. b. Cf. n. 18.d. 35. a. Cf. F. Z im m e rm a n n , “A n E x a m in a tio n o f S om e B iblical P assages,”JB L 65 (1946) 312. 36. a. In this series th e g e n ex p resses th e c h a ra c te r o f th e n o u n in c o n s tr a n d is tra n sla te d as an adj (GKC § 1 2 8 p ;Jo ü o n §129f; /£ //S § 9 .5 .3 b ). 36.b. L X X o m its ‫ א י פ ת צ ד ק‬, “a ju s t e p h a h .” 36.c. E p h a h is e q u iv a le n t to a b a th (E zek 45:11) a n d a te n th o f a h o m e r. T h is te rm o ccu rs in th e O T u sually as a d ry m e a su re . G iven a 22-liter b a th , a n e p h a h is 19.9 dry q u a rts o r 23.2 liq u id q u a rts ( th e re is so m e ev id en ce fo r th e u se o f a b a th twice th a t size in so m e tim es a n d places; E. M. C ook, “W eig h ts a n d M e asu res,” ISB Erev. 4 :1 0 4 9 -5 1 ). 36.d. H in co m es fro m a n E gyptian te rm fo r a liq u id a n d dry m e a su re . In O T it is n o rm ally u se d as a liq u id m e a su re . A h in is o ne-sixth o f a n e p h a h , 3.8 liq u id o r 3.3 dry q u a rts b ased o n a 2 2 -lite r b a th (E. M. C ook, ISB E rev. 4 :1 0 5 0 -5 1 ). 36. e. O n th is fo rm see W. G ross, “D ie H e ra u sfü h ru n g sfo rm e l— Z um V e rh á ltn is von F o rm e l u n d S y n tax ,” ZAW 86 (1974) 4 2 5-53. 37. a. Cf. n. 12.a.

Form/Structure/Setting

T he structure o f this speech is outlined as follows:I. I. Introductory formula (v 1) II. Speech (vv 2-37) A. Commission to speak (v 2aa) B. Speech proper (vv 2a/¿37) 1. Central thesis—call to holiness (v 2a/3-b) 2. Body of speech (vv 3-36) a. First set of laws (vv 3-18) 1) On fearing parents, keeping the Sabbath, and avoiding idolatry (vv 3-4) 2) Regarding the handling of an offering of well-being (vv 5-8) 3) Five sets of prohibitions and commandments (vv 9-18)

308

L e v it ic u s 1 9 : 1 3 7 ‫־‬

a)

Against gleaning fields and vineyards and for leaving leftovers for the poor (vv 9 1 0 ‫) ־‬ b) Against theft and deceit (vv 1 1 1 2 ‫) ־‬ c) Against oppression of others and abuse of the handicapped and for fear of God (vv 1 3 1 4 ‫) ־‬ d) Against injustice and slander and for just judgment (vv 1 5 1 6 ‫) ־‬ e) Against hate and taking vengeance and for loving one’s neighbor (vv 1 7 1 8 ‫) ־‬ b. Second set of laws (vv 19-29) 1) Against mixture of diverse elements (v 19) 2) Regarding sexual relations between a man and a betrothed slave (vv 2 0 2 2 ‫) ־‬

3) Regarding fruit trees (vv 2 3 2 5 ‫) ־‬ 4) Against eating blood and practicing divination (v 26) 5) Against cutting of hair and marking the body (vv 2 7 2 8 ‫) ־‬ 6) Against selling a daughter into prostitution (v 29) c. Third set of laws (vv 3 0 3 6 ‫) ־‬ 1) Regarding keeping the Sabbath and revering the sanctuary (v 30) 2) Against necromancy (v 31) 3) For respect of elders (v 32) 4) For love of aliens (vv 3 3 3 4 ‫) ־‬ 5) For just weights and measures (vv 3 5 3 6 ‫) ־‬ 3. Concluding exhortation to keep these laws (v 37) This speech presents num erous laws pertaining to the practice o f holiness in all aspects o f daily life. Given the diversity o f these laws, it is h ard to find a definitive structure to this speech. These laws, however, cluster a ro u n d three topics: faithfulness in worship (w3a/?30-31 ,27-28 ,21-22 ,12 ,8‫) ־‬, expression of love and respect in interpersonal relationships (vv 11, 13-14, 17-18, 19-20, 29, 32-34), and practice o f justice in business and at court (vv 15-16, 35-36). All these laws reveal G od’s desire that Israel bring every area o f h e r life into conform ity with his holy character. T he speech is headed by the thesis: Israel is to be holy because God is holy (v 2a/3fb). T he recu rrence of the verb ‫שמר‬, “keep,” signals the three divisions of this speech (cf. M agonet, H AR 7 [1983] 165-66). At the h ead o f the first and the third divisions is the com m and ‫ ארדשבתתי תשמר‬, “keep my Sabbaths” (v 3a/? and v 30aα). A nother com m and heads the second division: ‫ את־חקתי תשמרו‬, “keep my decrees” (v 19aa). T he conclusion (v 37) uses ‫שמר‬, “keep,” in the exhortation ‫ושמרתם את־כל־־חקתי‬, “keep all my decrees.” This concluding exhortation echoes the language o f 18:4, 5, 26 and 20:8, 22a (identical), establishing a tie with both the preceding and the following speeches. T h ere are o th e r literary ties betw een the first an d the th ird divisions in addition to the com m and “keep.” T he first division has the great com m andm ent to love o n e ’s n eighbor (v 18aβ). A similar com m and to love the resident alien comes in the third division (v 34aα + b ) . O ne prohibition is stated in the first division and repeated in the third one: ‫ לא־תע שו עול במשפט‬, “you shall n o t do inju s tic e in j u d g m e n t” (v v 15a α , 35a). F o r chiastic effec t it p re c e d e s th e com m and “to love” in the first division, while in the third division it follows th at com m and. T he application of this prohibition differs betw een the divisions, however. In the first division the context is about showing favoritism to a party at

Form/Structure/Setting

309

co u rt (vv 15-16), while in the third division the context regulates ju st weights an d m easures (vv 35-36). A nother link between the first and the third divisions is the exhortation n o t to tu rn (‫ ) א ל פנה‬to o th er objects o f worship (vv 4, 31). T he objects o f false worship, however, are different: idols in the first division and ghosts in th e th ird . Since th ese form s o f false w orship stan d at o p p o site poles, th e use o f these two p ro h ib itio n s in this m a n n e r co n d e m n s every kin d o f false worship. T here are a couple o f o th er patterns in this speech. Both times the m aterials re g a rd in g sacrifices (vv 5 -8 , 21-22) are follow ed by laws re g u la tin g agricultural practices (vv 9-10, 23-25). W enham (267) has uncovered a significant p a tte rn in v v 11-18. Each o f th e fo u r units, consisting o f two verses each, ends with the self-introductory form ula ‫ אני יהרה‬, “I am Yahweh.” W ithin these units there is a climactic use o f the term s for the people with whom one is to relate: vv 11-12 vv 13-14

associate (‫)אמית‬

vv 15-16

associate (‫)עמית‬

people (‫)עמים‬

friend (‫)רע‬

associate (‫)עמית‬

countrymen (‫) בני עם‬

friend (‫)רע‬

vv 17-18

friend (‫)רע‬ brother (‫)אח‬

W enham (267) notes that this p attern o f slowly filling o ut a list o f synonyms alerts the hearer, leading one to listen for all four term s in the fourth couplet. These various p attern s along with the th ree major, intertw ining cords organize this speech with great rhetorical power. T he first one o f these three intertw ining cords is ‫ קדו ש‬, “holiness.” Holiness, the central them e of this speech, is first m et in the call to holiness in v 2a/3 + b. The phrase ΠΤΠ ‫ ק ד ש‬, “the holiness of Yahweh,” appears in v 8. V 24 speaks of fruit from young trees that is a holy gift (‫ ) ק ד ש‬because it belongs to God. T he term ‫ מ ק ד ש‬, “holy p lace, san c tu a ry ,” occurs in v 30. O th e r term s, p hrases, an d them es contribute to the them e o f holiness. T he use o f ‫שם‬, “nam e,” for God in v 12 (2x) calls to the Israelite m ind holiness, for G od’s nam e is holy (e.g., Isa 57:15). T h e concepts o f “fe a r” a n d “h o lin ess” are interw oven, for fear is a prim ary h um an response to the holy (R. O tto, The Idea of the Holy [Oxford: O x fo rd UP, 1967] 12-24). N o w o n d er th e term ‫י ר א‬, “fe ar,” ap p e ars fo u r times: fearing God twice (v 14b, 32b), fearing or revering his sanctuary (v 30a), an d fearing o n e ’s parents (v 3aa). U nderscoring fu rth e r the them e o f holiness are the recu rring form ulae of Yahweh’s self-introduction: ‫ אני יהוה אלהיכם‬, “I am Yahweh, your G od” (vv 2, 3, 4, 10, 25, 31, 34, 36), and ‫ אני יהוה‬, “I am Yahweh” (vv 12, 14, 16, 18, 28, 30, 32, 37; cf. Excursus at 18:5). These form ulae proclaim the identity o f Yahweh as the Holy O ne o f Israel. Finally the them e o f “holiness” attracts its co u n terp art, ‫ ח ל ל‬, “profane, desecrate.” This term is used twice, o nce against d esecrating G o d ’s n am e by taking a false o ath in his nam e (v 12) and once o f sham ing a d augh ter by m aking h er a prostitute (v 29a). T he second major, intertw ining cord is the interplay between this speech and the Decalogue o f Exod 20 as the following chart shows:

L e v it ic u s

310

.

1

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

1 9 :1 -3 7

Decalogue No other gods (Exod 20:3) No molten images (20:4-6) No vain use of God’s name (20:7) Remember the Sabbath (20:8-12) Honor father and mother (20:12) No murder (20:13) No adultery (20:14) No stealing (20:15 ;‫) ע ב‬ No false witness (20:16) No coveting (20:17)

Lev 19 v 4a v 12 vv 3aβ, 30aa v 3aa v 16aβ v 29 (20-22) vv 11a, 13 (35-36) vv 11b, 16aα vv 17-18 (9-10)

While there is no direct reference to the first com m andm ent, the entire ten o r of the speech, being m onotheistic, supports this com m andm ent. T he com m andm en t against coveting is observed by n o t hating bu t loving o n e ’s neighbor (vv 17-18). Both the com m andm ent n o t to hate a b ro th er in v 17a and the comm andm ent to love others as oneself (vv 18a/?, 34) would eradicate all m urder from the community. In this speech num erous specific laws are m ixed in with the categorical laws in o rd er to dem onstrate how the general laws are to be carried out in daily life. For example, the categorical com m andm ent ‫ ל א תגזל‬, “do n o t ro b ,” finds application in the prohibition no t to keep a hired h a n d ’s wages overnight (v 13). In addition to treating ethical issues, the speaker also addresses issues of worship. After categorical com m andm ents about keeping the Sabbath and not m aking images (vv 3a/3-4), he gives specific instructions about handling food from an offering o f well-being (‫ ; ז ב ח שלמים‬cf. chap. 3). H e includes laws dealing with both the ethical and the cultic dim ensions o f life, since these two areas are inexorably b o u n d together in a holy life. In fact, B. Childs ( The Book of Exodus, OTL [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974] 396) points out that the ethical and the cultic are fused in OT law from the earliest level o f the tradition. Som e linguistic sim ilarities are observable betw een this speech an d the Decalogue. T he speaker uses the em phatic, categorical form o f prohibition, i.e., ‫ לא‬plus the im perfect, as does the Decalogue. W hereas in the Decalogue the verbs are singular, there is a m ixture of singular and plural verbs here. Why is there such a m ixture? T he preponderance of plural form s suggests that the speaker took these lines from a source w ithout m aking any changes and that he used singular form s for his material. But this reconstruction is n o t supported by the com m and ‫ ל א תגנבו‬, “you [pi] shall not steal,” in v 1 la. In the Decalogue it is ‫ ל א תגב‬, “you [sg] shall n o t steal” (Exod 20:15). T he m ixture of second person plural and singular form s is then a rhetorical device by which the speaker addresses both Israel as a com m unity and each m em ber of that community. This variation fails to serve as an indication of sources used by the speaker. This position finds supp o rt in the use of ‫איש‬, “a m an ,” with a plural im perfect verb in v 3a to apply this collective law to every m em ber of the audience. A nother p o in t o f concurrence between this speech and the Decalogue is the pream ble to both works. The opening ex h o rta tio n , ‫ קדשי□ תהיו כי קדוש אני יהוה‬, “be holy because I Yahweh am holy,” is the pream ble to this speech (M orgenstern, HUCA 26 [1955] 10-12); it functions like the expanded self-introductory form ula th at is the pream ble to the Decalogue (Exod 20:2//D eut 5:6). W ith the term “holy” Yahweh declares his distinct n a tu re as th e Holy O n e o f Israel (e.g.,

Form/Structure/Setting

311

Isa 41:20; 43:3;). Israel is to become “holy” like her God. This implies the covenant relationship and its obligations (M orgenstern, 11). In addition, the expanded self-introduction o f Yahweh at the en d of this sp e e c h , ‫ אלהיכם אשר־הוצאתי‬ΠΥΠ ‫אני‬ ‫ א תכ ם מארץ מצרים‬, “I am Yahweh your God who bro u g h t you o u t o f the land of Egypt” (v 36b), is for the m ost p art identical to the pream ble to the Decalogue. These two statem ents fram e the laws o f this speech. Therefore, w ithout entering into the com plicated issues of traditio-historical study of the Decalogue and its relationship to this speech (cf. B. Childs, The Book of Exodus, 388-401 ;J. I. Durham , Exodus, WBC 3 [Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987] 278-83), it may be stated that in its canonical context this speech is an exposition o f the Decalogue. This is an appropriate place to m ention the prim ary direction of literary studies on this speech. Critics have concentrated their efforts on finding one or two decalogues as the center o f this speech. M orgenstern (HUCA 26 [1955] 39-66) initiated this approach. Several have followed his lead, putting forth a variety of proposals as to the original decalogue and its growth. Kilian and Elliger, e.g., have proposed that a double decalogue form s the core o f this speech. According to Kilian (Literarkntische, 58-59), the first decalogue is a group o f prohibitions expressed with singular verbs found in vv 13aa, 13a/?, 14aa, 14a/?, 15a/?+ay, 16aa, 16a/?, 17a, 18aa, 18a,#. Elliger (254), however, argues that this is a dodecalogue, recognizable by the singular second person verbs (12b—14; 15a/3-18). Kilian (59) notes the strong social direction of this series as it addresses how one should relate to others. T he second decalogue is m ade u p of prohibitions form ulated in the second person plural. Kilian (60-62) gains this decalogue by jo in in g vv 11 (3), 12a (Elliger includes 15aa), 26 (3), 27a (Elliger includes all o f v 27), 28a, 28aa, 28a/? recognizable by the second person plural forms. T he issues in this decalogue are property rights and cultic issues (Elliger, 254). These studies dem onstrate th at this speech consists of groups o f laws central to Israel’s cult. W hether these laws were initially grouped by tens and twelves is unknown. T he m ajor obstacle to this literary analysis is that the text has to be rearranged in o rd er to gain a pure decalogue. A close look at the text shows th at some verses split by this m ethod are well balanced in their present construction. V 13, o f which Kilian accepts only stich A for the decalogue, e.g., is a whole, consisting of two prohibitions on one side o f the athnah and an expanded prohibition on the o th er side. This is good rhetorical style, for the prohibition in stich B is a specific application of the general prohibitions in stich A. As for v 15, Kilian (Literarkntische, 58) takes two parts o f it for his first decalogue, while Elliger (254) assigns the first part to the second decalogue and the o th er three parts to the dodecalogue. But as this verse stands it has good balance, moving from general to specific and then from specific to general, being arranged chiastically: general ‫לא־תעשו עול במשפט‬ “you shall not do injustice in judgment”

specific

‫לא־תשא פני־דל‬ “you shall not be partial to the poor” ‫ולא תהדר פני גדול‬ “you shall not honor the great” ‫בצדק תשפט עמיתך‬ “you shall judge your friend in righteousness”

A B B’ A

312

L e v it ic u s

1 9 :1 3 7 ‫־‬

F urtherm ore, A and B employ synonymous and antithetical parallelism. In B and B‫ ׳‬the verbs are synonymous, while the direct objects are antithetical; the prohibition is rep eated with synonymous verbs for em phasis, an d the antithesis o f “poor-great” com m unicates that this prohibition applies to all people. In p art A, the verbal idea is stated negatively and then positively. T he term s qualifying the verbal idea are antithetical:‫ עו ל‬, “injustice” (A), and ‫ ב צ ד ק‬, “in righteousness” (A ). As it now stands, this verse is intricately com posed and should n o t be divided. T herefore, these attem pts to reconstruct an original decalogue som etim es fail to notice the design o f the laws in their final form . T he third major, intertwining cord holding this speech together is the principle o f loving a person like oneself (v 18b), which is expanded by the parallel comm an dm en t to love the resident alien (v 34a). It functions as the basic principle for the num erous prohibitions regulating a p erso n ’s relationship to another. This com m andm ent undergirds the various com m andm ents to extend mercy and show respect: i.e., to leave portions of the harvest for the poor and the sojourner (vv 9‫־‬ 10), n ot to hold back the wages of a worker (v 13b), and to honor the elderly (v 32). While the structure of this speech is loose, it is still existent. In fact, the short, crisp prohibitions and com m andm ents interspersed with longer, fuller legal material offer rhetorical variety and impact. The content of this speech, laws for the oral instruction o f the com m unity in the requirem ents o f living a holy life, definitely fits the setting o f a covenant renewal cerem ony like o th er speeches in Lev 1 7 2 6 ‫ ־‬. Comment

2 Moses is directed to speak to the entire ‫ ע ד ה‬, “congregation,” o f Israel. ‫עד ה‬ signals th at the people are assembled as a com m unity u n d e r the covenant (cf. 4:13). T he them e for the laws on holy living found in chaps. 17-26 is stated at the head o f this chapter. Israel is to be ‫ ק ד ש‬, “holy,” because Yahweh, h er God, is ‫ ק ד ש‬, “holy” ( 1 1 : 4 4 2 1 : 8 ;26 ,20:7 ;45‫ ; ־‬D eut 7:6; 14:2; 26:19; 28:9). H oliness is quintessential quality of Yahweh. In the entire universe, he alone is intrinsically holy. T he nom inal sentence, Yahweh is holy, points in this direction. T hat God is holy m eans th at he is exalted, awesome in power, glorious in appearance, pure in character. G od’s holiness is contagious. W herever his presence is, that place becomes holy. Since Israel’s holiness is learned and is derived from Yahweh, the com m and for Israel to becom e holy is expressed in a verbal sentence; the use o f the verb ‫ הי ה‬, “be, becom e,” captures the m aturing dim ension o f holiness on the hum an plane. Being Yahweh’s representative on earth, Israel is to evidence in h er com m unity characteristics that are similar to G od’s. WTiereas G od’s holiness is dynamic, outgoing, Israel makes herself holy by separating herself from sin and all that defiles in o rd er to experience the sanctifying presence of God. 3 Two basic com m andm ents head this speech. They reiterate the fifth and fourth com m andm ents o f the Decalogue (Exod 2 0 :8 1 2 ‫ ; ־‬D eut 5 :1 2 1 6 ‫) ־‬. T he first one, fearing o n e ’s parents, is the foundation of social morality, and the second, keeping the Sabbath, is essential for spiritual vitality. C hildren are enjoined to revere (‫ )י ר א‬both m other and father (cf. Exod 20:12; D eut 5:16; 27:16). T he use o f ‫ירא‬, “fear,” for parents is m ost unusual. In the Decalogue it says, “H o n o r [‫] כ ב ד‬ your father and your m o th er” (Exod 20:12; D eut 5:16). W hen ‫ירא‬, “fear,” is used

Comment

313

to express respect and devotion, God is usually the object. In this com m andm ent, “fear” m eans a child is to acknowledge his p arents’ authority. This com m and thus gives parents an exalted place in a child’s life. F urtherm ore, the initial position o f the m o th er in this com m and is striking (cf. 20:19; 21:2). Clearly the m o th er is being honored. While Baentsch (396) and Noordtzij (193) explain it as that which would be expected in a polygamous family (cf. 18:9), it may ra th e r be from the pro m in en t role a m other has in rearing children. From a com parison o f the place of parents in o th er M iddle Eastern docum ents, Albertz (ZAW90 [1978] 356-74) conjectures th at the setting for such a com m and m ight have been their transferen c e o f th e estate to th e ir son o r c h ild re n as they w ithdrew from active m anagem ent of the land; the son or children then were to revere their parents by caring for them in their old age. For him (372-73), the front position o f the m o th er is thus explicable in light of h er hu sb an d ’s great concern that his wife be taken care o f should she outlive him , as often was the case. W hile it is doubtful th at this setting is the only one for this com m and, it is very likely that this comm and does address care o f parents in their old age. T he next com m and is to keep the Sabbath (cf. 23:3), the seal of the covenant. T he covenant com m itted Israel to an intim ate relationship with God. To foster the vitality o f th at relationship, the Sabbath was instituted as a special day for every family in Israel to worship God (cf. v 30a; Exod 20:8; cf. Lev 23:3; 26:2a). In the Decalogue the com m and is “to rem em b er” (‫ )ז כ ר‬the Sabbath so as to observe it as a holy day to worship Yahweh (cf. B. Childs, Memory and Tradition [London: SCM Press, 1962] 47-48,52-56). H ere the verb is ‫שמר‬, “keep,” m eaning to observe the special customs and practices o f that day. T he Scriptures are amazingly silent on what those practices should include; this silence shows that God entrusts to hum an insight the specific ways to live up to his general instructions. 4 This p ro h ib itio n against w orshiping idols reiterates the first two comm andm ents o f the Decalogue (Exod 20:3, 4). Israel shall n o t worship any o ther ‫ א לי לי ם‬, “gods” (also 26:1), n o r shall she m ake any ‫ א ל הי מסכ ה‬, “m olten gods.” Possibly the choice o f the verb ‫ פנ ה‬, “tu rn ,” is to call to m ind the phrase ‫על״פני‬, “before m e,” in the first com m andm ent. ‫ פנה אל‬m eans to change directions; in passages with worship it m eans to focus o n e ’s attention on serving an o th er diety (cf. D eut 31:20; Hos 3:1; Ps 40:5[4]; Jo b 5:1). T he second com m andm ent prohibits the m aking of any ‫ פ ס ל‬, “im age,” worked o u t o f stone, wood, or metal (Exod 34:17). This prohibition com es after the incident o f A aron’s m aking a ‫ עג ל מסכה‬, “m olten ca lf’ (Exod 32:4, 8). Images are forbidden because they are inadequate, and thus false, representations o f Yahweh’s identity (Childs, The Book of Exodus, 409; idem , Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Contest, 66-68). Moreover, Yahweh has revealed him self to his people through the word, n o t in a specific form (Deut 4:12, 15-19). This dynamic o f the God who speaks and whose words act cannot be confined to a static representation. 5-8 W hen Israel sacrifices offerings o f well-being (cf. chap. 3) to worship God, they are to sacrifice them in such a m an n er that God will accept them (cf. 1:3; 22:29). T he people are n o t to follow the ritual and assume th at God automatically receives their sacrifices. Why is there a reference to presenting a sacrifice in this speech on holy living? T he answer is that the call to holiness em braces every dim ension o f life, including the ethical and the cultic (Noordtzij, 191). Laws about ‫ ז ב ח שלמים‬, “the sacrifice o f well-being,” may occur here because h u ­

314

L e v it ic u s

19:1-37

m ans offer this type of sacrifice as a spontaneous or prom ised response to G od’s blessing (cf. chap. 3; 7:11-21; H offm ann, 2:33). In addition, since sacrifices of this type are the only ones from which the laity may eat, there is special concern th at the family o r clan n o t relax the observance of the laws pertaining to how this m eat is to be handled. This m eat may be eaten for one or two days, bu t on the th ird day whatever is leftover has to be disposed o f (7:16-18). Such leftover m eat is called ‫ פגול‬, “defiled m eat” (7:18). Anyone who eats from defiled m eat violates the sacredness o f the cult. Such an act destroys the benefits o f the sacrificial offering by m aking it no longer ‫רצה‬, “acceptable.” Profaning (‫ ) ח ל ל‬that which is holy by treating it as com m on bears the severest penalty. A person who com m its such an offense is to be ‫נכר ת‬, “cut off,” from the covenant ‫ ע ם‬, “p eo p le” (see 7:19-21). 9 -1 0 A landow ner shall n o t endeavor to gather as m uch as he possibly can from his fields, either by harvesting the corners of the field or by going back over his field to gather the grain that has fallen while reaping. T he ancients harvested grain by gathering a bundle o f stalks in one h an d and cutting them with a sickle held in the o th er hand. This same standard applies to the owner o f a vineyard. Vines shall n o t be stripped, n o r shall the fallen grapes be picked up (cf. D eut 24:19-21). T he fallen grain and the corners are to be left for the ‫עני‬, “poor,” and the ‫גר‬, “resident alien,” ‫ ל ק ט‬, “to glean.” These people have little incom e and, du rin g h ard times, little hope of earning a living. God wants the landlords to be thankful for their harvest and to express their acknow ledgm ent that God has richly blessed them by sharing some o f the harvest with the un fo rtu n ate (Ruth 2). These decrees u n d ercu t the strong hum an tem ptation to greed in the presence o f plenty. This standard of generosity is prudently form ulated. O n the one h and, it does n o t place an added b u rd en on the landlord, for he does n o t have to pay for the collection of these gleanings. O n the o th er hand, the p o o r and the foreigner m aintain their dignity, for in place o f a h an d o u t they are given the privilege to labor for their own needs. They have to expend effort to benefit from G od’s grace m anifested through the lan d lo rd ’s generosity. O bservation o f this practice reflects G od’s merciful concern for the unfortunate. A generous landlord m ight have his workers leave extra sheaves for the po o r as Boaz did for R uth (Ruth 2:15-16). T he similar law found in D eut 24:19-22 is rooted in Israel’s saving history. Since God showed his love for Israel in Egypt where they were both poor an d aliens, he wishes th at his people in tu rn will express kindness to the unfortúnate. This law is expressed as a principle; later the rabbis established that a sixtieth p art o f a harvest was the m inim um am ount for com pliance with this law ( m. PPa 1.1-2). 11-12 A person shall n o t steal; this is the eighth com m andm ent (cf. Exod 20:15; D eut 5:19). ‫ גנב‬is a theft done in secret (Milgrom, Cult). Following this prohibition there are three prohibitions against falsehood. ‫ כחש‬has a wide range o f m eanings such as “fail, belie, deceive, deny, deal falsely”; J. Oswalt ( TW OT 1:437) suggests th at “d ec ep tio n ” is the prim ary m eaning. ‫ שקר‬m eans “to act falsely towards, go back on o n e ’s w ord.” O ften one who is lying is forced into a situation in which he m ust back up his words by a form al oath taken in G od’s nam e. W hen a person lies u n d e r an oath taken in G od’s nam e, he ‫ ח ל ל‬, “profanes,” G od’s nam e. Since a nam e bears o n e ’s identity, a person denies the purity o f G od’s character by using his nam e or reputation to substantiate a deceptive word (cf. 18:21). Why does a crim e against property head this list? T he answer is

Comment

315

found in com paring this text with 5:21-23(6:2-4); there these verbs occur togeth er to indicate that deception and swearing false oaths were used to secure control o f an associate’s (‫ ;ע מי ת‬see 6:2[9]) property. Such practice is prohibited by the n in th com m andm ent (Exod 20:16; D eut 5:20). From an o th er perspective, stealing leads one into deception, and subsequently it can lead one to swear falsely u n d e r oath in o rd er to cover up the initial crime. Dealing with a neighbor deceptively breaks the bonds o f friendship based on trust and is the opposite o f the com m and to love o n e ’s neighbor (v 18). Cf. M att 5:34-37; Jas 5:12. 13 T he first two of these three prohibitions are general statem ents, and the th ird provides a specific application of the general prohibitions. An Israelite shall n o t ‫ע שק‬, “oppress,” a friend. O ne is n o t to m ake a n o th e r’s life h ard er by the use o f force so th at the oppressor can have m ore. An Israelite shall n o t ‫גזל‬, “ro b ,” a n o th e r. T h e basic m e a n in g o f ‫ גזל‬is “to sn atch so m e th in g v io len tly ” (J. Schupphaus, “‫ גזל‬gazal,” TD O T2A56). In Jo b 24:9 it is used for the grabbing o f a child from his m o th er’s breast. It also depicts the strong snatching from the weak what they want (Gen 31:31; D eut 28:31; Jo b 24:2), such as defrauding a person of his field or hom e (Mic 2:2). This term often occurs with the root ‫ע ש ק‬, “oppress” (Lev 5:21, 23[6:2, 4]; D eut 28:29; J e r 21:12; 22:3; Ezek 18:18; 22:29; Mic 2:2; Ps 62:11 [10]; Eccl 5:7[8]). It thus describes the brazen taking o f som ething from an o th er either by physical force or by exercising o n e ’s power o f position or influence. O n e exam ple o f oppression, the practice o f h o ld in g back a h ired day-laborer’s wage, is m entioned. This practice deprives that laborer o f the possibility o f purchasing food for his family for the evening meal and for the following day (Deut 24:14-15; cf. J e r 22:13; M att 20:8). An em ployer may n o t use for his own convenience and profit an accounting practice that works a hardship on his lab o rer’s family. A laborer who has n o t been quickly paid cries ou t to God for relief, and God will hold the em ployer responsible for causing this u n due hardship (Deut 24:14-15; cf. Jas 5:4). God judges severely those who m istreat their laborers for personal gain. 14 A person is n o t to take advantage o f a handicapped person, particularly by playing on that perso n ’s handicap. In fro n t o f a d eaf person one shall no t swear an oath, an oath designed to harm or ridicule th at person. In D eut 27:18 a curse is laid on one who leads a blind person astray. Similarly a person is prohibited from placing ‫מכ של‬, “a stum bling block,” in the path o f a blind person. The oath and the stum bling block include anything that m ight harm the handicapped person either for o n e ’s own profit or ou t o f spite. T he person who fears God will never act so cruelly (cf. v 3). Everyone needs to keep in m ind the fact that God looks after the disadvantaged and holds accountable any who take advantage o f them . T he arran g em ent o f the decrees in this verse is two specific prohibitions followed by a general com m and. This pattern reveals that a pious life leads to a high regard for hum an life and encourages compassion for those who suffer from a serious handicap. 15 Never should injustice (‫ ) עו ל‬be d o n e in re n d erin g a legal ju d g m e n t (‫)מ שפט‬. T he prohibitions n o t to favor the po o r n o r to h o n o r the great guard against ren d erin g unjust decisions. Judges and councils, being hum an, are open to influence from factors o th er than the m erits o f a case. But in rendering a judicial decision no favoritism is to be shown to anyone, regardless o f status (cf. Jas 2:1, 9). T he com m and n o t to favor the po o r is surprising in light o f the concern

316

L e v it ic u s

19:1-37

th ro u g h o u t the O T for the widow, the orphan, and the po o r (e.g., Exod 22:2026[21-27]; 23:6; D eut 24:17-18; 27:19). This prohibition seeks to prevent that concern from causing the elders to lean a ju d g m en t in favor o f the u nfortunate solely because th at person is po o r (cf. Exod 23:3). Justice may n o t be perverted even for the disadvantaged. N ext it states th at “the g re at” are n o t to be ‫ ה ד ר‬, “h o n o re d ” o r “favored,” by allowing their position to influence a jud g m en t. The people are to ju d g e a close associate (‫ ;ע מי ת‬cf. v 11) righteously. ‫ ד ל‬, “poor,” and ‫ג דו ל‬, “great,” are used to include everyone. Since God is just, his people m ust establish justice in their courts as the foundation o f their covenant relationship with him. T he in n er strength o f a nation resides in the integrity o f its judicial system. 16 A person shall n o t go about as a slanderer (‫) ר כי ל‬. T he basic m eaning o f the verb ‫ ר כ ל‬is “go about from one place to another, traffic” (BDB, 940; Ezek 17:4; 27:3) and the noun ‫ רכיל‬m eans “slanderer.” This term occurs in six referenees (Jer 6:28; 9:3[4]; Ezek 22:9; Prov 11:13a; 20:19aa) and depicts one who maliciously spreads u n tru th about another. It usually occurs with ‫ ה ל ך‬, “g o ,” to em phasize that this kind o f person aggressively spreads a distorted tale. Since a person is known by his reputation, the spreading o f malicious gossip about a person dam ages that o n e ’s influence and discredits his character (cf. J e r 6:28; 9 :3 [4 ]; 2 C or 12:20; E ph 4:31; Jas 4:11; 5:9; 1 P et 2:1). N e ith e r m ay o n e ‫ ת ע מ ד על־ד ם‬, “act against the life,” lit. “stand on the blood,” of a friend. This idiom is variously interpreted. O ne view takes it to m ean “to place in jeopardy” a p erso n ’s life. Spreading a slanderous lie can p u t o n e ’s life at risk, especially in a society in which the death penalty is prevalent. Targum Onqelos and Ibn Ezra un d erstand the idiom “n o t to stand over b lood” to m ean “to conspire against” (Levine, 127). A nother view takes it to m ean “to stand aside, neglect” an o th er at a critical time, such as by failing to testify in a p erso n ’s defense when one has evidence to clear the person in jeopardy. W enham (268) notes that in an ancient village feuds and personal animosities could easily distort the decision o f a court consisting o f local elders. A nother view assigns it the m eaning “to survive, rely o n ” (cf. Gen 27:40; Ezek 33:26; Levine, 127). This has led to the NJPS translation “Do n o t profit by the blood o f your fellow.” All of these views agree that this line is saying th at one person is n o t to place an o th er p erso n ’s life at risk. 17 No one shall hate his b ro th er (‫ ) א ח‬in his heart. H atred festering in o n e ’s h ea rt distorts the thinking and stimulates the im agination into p o n d erin g ways to seek th at b ro th e r’s harm . W hen one hates an o th er w ithout addressing the basic com plaint, one easily succumbs to com prom ising his own integrity by speaking deceit (cf. Prov 10:18). T hat person may even fall to slandering that brother. If a person has a ju st com plaint against an associate (‫ ;ע מי ת‬cf. v 11), he is to ‫ הו כ ח‬, “dispute openly,” with that person. ‫ הוכח‬m eans “reprove, reb u k e,” and it also has a forensic sense, i.e., “argue o n e ’s case” (Job 13:3, 15). Its basic m eaning is “to establish what is rig h t” (Amos 5:10; Isa 29:21; G. Liedke, “‫ יכה‬jkh hi. feststellen, was rech t 1st,” TH AT 1:730). Proverbs uses ‫ הוכח‬frequently in the sense o f “reprove, reb u k e”; e.g., rep ro o f benefits a wise person even though the giving o f re p ro o f is u n p leasan t (9:7-8b; 19:25; 25:12; 28:23). Does ‫ הוכ ח‬here m ean “re p ro v e” or “dispute in co u rt”? Since the decrees in the im m ediate context are concerned with justice in the court, ‫ הוכח‬has to do with taking o n e ’s com plaint against ano th er to court. T hereby the contention is m ade public, and the court can ren d er

Comment

317

a ju st decision to resolve the conflict. The next sentence says ‫ ל א תשא עליו חטא‬, (lit.) “you will n o t carry sin fo r/c o n cern in g him .” T he idiom ‫ נשא‬plus a word for sin usually m eans “to bear the responsibility for a sin” (20:20; 22:9; 24:15; N um 18:32 with ‫ ח ט א‬, “sin,” as here; cf. 5:1 [cf. n. 5:l.b.], 17; 19:8 with ‫ערן‬, “iniquity”). But the exact m eaning o f this idiom as used here is n o t immediately obvious. O ne possible m eaning is th at by formally pursuing a com plaint against a brother, one keeps h atred from growing and venting itself in unjust or oppressive behavior designed to harm the offending neighbor. O r this sentence could m ean th at if a neighbor has truly w ronged one, that person does n o t com e to share in the o th e r’s sin by keeping silent. H offm ann (2:43) understands the language to m ean that one is guilty o f a sin for n o t reproving his neighbor. In an extensive study, Kugel (H TR 80 [1987] 49-54, 5 7 5 8 ‫ ) ־‬shows that in the early tradition two basic ways of interpreting this sentence developed. T Gad (6:34) in The Testament of the Twelve Patnarchs in terp reted this passage to m ean th at an offended party is n o t to reproach the offending party so insistently and so persistently that he moves the offender to swear. F u rth er such contentiousness itself becom es a sin. T hat is why it is said in the “M anual of Discipline” (IQ S 5:24-6:1) from the Q um ran com m unity th at one is to reproach an o th er “in tru th and humility and in loving consideration to a m an .” This is a m oral interpretation of this text. T he o th er interpretive tradition is witnessed by the “Damascus Docum en t” (CD 9:2-8 and also in IQ S 5:24-6:1). T he reproach is considered to be a necessary step in the judicial process. Before form alizing a com plaint against an‫־‬ o th er by taking th at person to court, the offended party m ust have officially reproached the offender (cf. M att 18:15-17). This is a form al, judicial interpretation o f the passage. Otherw ise, the offended party falls into the sin of using a n o th e r’s fault or m isdeed as a pretext to hum ble a n d /o r to harm that person. Kugel’s study shows how two different interpretations o f the same passage may grow in different portions of the com m unity com m itted to following Scripture. 18 T he next two prohibitions speak out against □‫נ ק‬, “seeking vengeance,” and ‫נטר‬, “bearing a g ru dge.” ‫ נטר‬m eans “to keep, m aintain,” e.g., the keeping of a vineyard (Cant 1:6; 8:11-12). Applied to God or hum ans, it m eans to carry or store u p anger toward an o th er (Jer 3:5, 12). A person who stores up his anger against a fellow citizen plottingly waits for an o p p o rtu n e time to vent that anger with ‫נ ק ם‬, “v en g ean ce.” W ith ‫ בני ע מ ך‬, “your c o u n try m e n ” (lit. “sons o f your p eo p le”) , this laws speaks strongly about a fellow citizen. T he desire for vengeance moves one to seek the harm o f his enemy, even though it is a fellow countrym an, in a m ean and decisive way. His anger so distorts his thinking that he cannot act astutely and judiciously toward the one he hates, who likewise is a m em ber of Israel, the people of God. Elsewhere, the Scriptures teach that when one is taken advantage of, he is to com m it his loss to God and trust God for vindication of his honor. God says, “It is m ine to avenge; I shall repay” (D eut 32:35a; cf. Ps 94:1). In his own time God will hold the guilty accountable. In the m eantim e, those who trust in him can be patient, confident that God will right the wrong they are bearing‘ Following these prohibitions comes the great com m andm ent to love o n e ’s com panion or friend (‫ ) ר ע‬like oneself. This com m and is stated positively for force. In this speech on holy living, it m eans that a person sanctifies oneself in o rder to act in love toward an acquaintance. ‫ רע‬m eans “friend, com panion, acquaintance”;

318

L e v it ic u s 1 9 :1 -3 7

it is used for a wide variety o f relationships, from a close friend (Job 2:11) to a m ere acquaintance (20:10; Exod 21:14; cf.J. Hogg, AJSL 41 [1924/25] 197-98). H ere it refers to anyone in Israel with whom a person has contact; thus Mathys (Liebe, 38) renders it “fellow countrym an.” T here is an interesting point o f gram m ar in this verse. The object o f ‫ א ה ב‬, “love,” is usually in the accusative, bu t in this case it is preceded by the preposition ‫ ל‬, “to.” Mathys (5) holds th at the latter construction is an Aramaism and th at there is no significant difference in m eaning between the two phraseologies, for in some texts ‫ את‬an d ‫ ל‬appear to be used interchangeably (cf. 2 C hr 10:6 with 10:9). However, M alamat (BAR 16 [1990] 50-51) claims th at ‫ אהב ל‬m eans “be o f use to, be beneficial to, assist”; he points o ut that in 2 C hr 19:2 ‫ אהב ל‬parallels ‫ עז ר‬, “h e lp ” (cf. 1 Kgs 5:15[1]). Since both expressions occur in Hebrew, there probably is a slight difference in nuance, with ‫ אהב ל‬centering on helpful action th at is m otivated by concern for another. Certainly in the parable o f the good Sam aritan the em phasis is on love th at acts to benefit an o th er (Luke 10:25-37). T he standard for loving o r being beneficial to an o th er person is that that person is like o n e ’s very own self, thus being w orthy o f o n e ’s love. T he classic illu stratio n o f such love for a n o th e r is th e relatio n sh ip betw een David an d Jo n ath an ; “Jo n ath an loved him like him self” (1 ;‫ כנפ שו‬Sam 18:1; cf. 18:3; 19:1; 20:17; 2 Sam 1:26). G. Wallis (“‫אהב‬ TDOT 1:111) states in regard to this verse that “even if the O T does n o t explicidy dem and self-denial and altruism , it advocates the kind o f behavior which equates concern for the well-being of o n e ’s n eig h b o r with th e assertion o f o n e ’s own will. In no case should o n e allow his own selfish interests to prevail w hen this would be harm ful to his neighbor.” In v 34 the com m and to love an acquaintance is extended to the ‫ג ר‬, “resident alien ” (also D eut 10:19). Jesus took this com m andm ent, elevated it as the second o f the two great com m andm ents, and expanded the circle o f “an acquaintance” to include all fellow hum ans, particularly anyone in n eed (M att 22:39-40; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:25-37; cf. Matt 5:43-47; 19:19; Luke 10:27; Rom 13:9-10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8). In this last o f four couplets four term s for people are used to convey inclusiveness—‫ א ח‬, “brother,” ‫עמית‬, “associate,” ‫ בני עמך‬, “your countrym en,” and ‫רע‬, “friend” (see Form/Structure/Setting) . This use o f these term s in this series, which begins with the prohibition n o t to hate and concludes with the com m and to love, encompasses every m em ber o f the covenant community. T he use o f these term s adds motivation to these laws. T hat is, the call is for one to reflect: are you acting negatively o r positively toward an o th er who belongs to the same group as you do (cf. Mathys, Liebe, 39)? 19 T he Israelites are n o t allowed to m ate different kinds o f anim als (‫) ב ה מ ה‬, n o r are they allowed to sow a field with two kinds o f seeds, n o r are they to develop textiles o f two different kinds o f m aterial (cf. D eut 22:9-11). In cultic legislation ‫ ב ה מ ה‬, “cattle,” includes both large and small dom esticated animals, especially those th at move about in herds (cf. G. J. Botterweck, “‫ ?המה‬tyhemah,” TDOT 2:910, 12). C. H outm an (V T 34 [1984] 227-28) says that this law seeks to prevent the b lu rrin g o f the variety o f species and kinds th at God created; that is, it seeks to preserve the diversity in the created world. These ‫ ח קו ת‬, “decrees,” against the m ixing o f things also contribute to the social consciousness that the holy is pure an d unad u lterated (cf. Douglas, Punty, 53).

Comment

319

20 -2 2 Sexual relations between m en and wom en are carefully regulated by the law (e.g., chaps. 18 and 20). This case concerns the relations o f a free m an with a slave girl pledged to an o th er m an. While the slave in Israel had a higher status than has been found to be the case in o th er law codes of the A ncient N ear East, the slave did n o t have the same rights as a full citizen. Laws in D euteronom y help provide some background for u nderstanding this passage better. T he law in D eut 22:23-24 holds that if a m an forces a b etro th ed free woman, both are to die. From law codes o f the ancient Middle East it is learned that if a female slave is ravished by a free m an, that m an would com pensate the slave owner, b u t he is n o t subject to the death penalty (Milgrom, ZAW89 [1977] 46). Moreover, a master could allow a female slave to be redeem ed; the redeem er could be a person who wished to m arry her. In this case a female slave has been pledged to an o th er m an, b u t she has n ot yet been redeem ed (ΓΗ0Π) n o r given h er freedom (‫ )חפ שה‬by h er m aster (cf. Exod 21:8). Since she has been betrothed, h er owner has no right to receive fu rth er com pensation because she has been violated; since she is still a slave, h er assailant is n o t subject to the death penalty. An inquiry (‫ ) ב ק ר ת‬into the m atter is to be undertaken to make sure that the facts are correct. T hough this m an who forced h er is beyond the punishm ent of the law, he, nevertheless, is guilty before God for having violated this woman. In M ilgrom ’s ju d g m en t (ZAW 89 [1977] 46, 48-49), that m an has com m itted the “great sin” o f adultery, which is a sin against God because as a m em ber o f Israel he has sworn to keep the covenant. Thus he has com m itted ‫ מ ע ל‬, “a breach o f faith” (cf. 5:4; Milgrom, Z W 8 9 [1977] 47). T hat is why he m ust make am ends or expiation for his sin by presenting a reparation offering (‫ ;אשם‬cf. 5:14-26[6:7]). T he anim al prescribed is a ram (‫ ; אי ל‬cf. 5:15-16). T here is no m ention of com pensation with this sacrifice, as is sometimes the case with a reparation offering, since the lady has been be‫־‬ tro th e d b u t n o t re d e e m e d . T h e re p a ra tio n o fferin g is efficacious, as th e statem ents that the priest makes expiation (‫ ) כ פ ר‬for him and he receives forgiveness (‫ ) ס ל ח‬from God com m unicate (cf. 4:20). 23-25 This series of laws regards the first yield of newly planted fruit trees. T he inclusion o f a few agricultural laws is to com m unicate th at every area of Israel’s life is governed by the call to holy living. T he Israelites may not eat any of the small am o u n t of fruit from a newly planted tree in the first three years; it is to be considered ‫ ע ר ל ה‬, “uncircum cised.” T he fruit of the fourth year is to be regarded as ‫ ק ד ש‬, “holy,” m eaning that all o f it belongs totally to God so that none o f it may be eaten or used for food. It is called ‫ הלולי ם ליהוה‬, “praises to Yahweh”; i.e., the fruit of this year is given in praise to Yahweh. It is treated like the firstfruits (2:14). From the fifth year on, the Israelites are free to harvest the fru it for themselves, giving to Yahweh the firstfruits o f each harvest. This statute is m oti‫־‬ vated by the prom ise that God will increase the harvest o f the orchards for those who are obedient. This kind o f law reinforces the com m unity’s consciousness that Yahweh is the owner o f the land. 26 T h e o p e n in g p ro h ib itio n is literally against “e a tin g on th e b lo o d ” (‫ ; ל א תאכלו על־ההם‬cf. 3:17; 7:27; 17:10-14; 1 Sam 14:32-34). This phraseology is elliptical, and its precise m eaning eludes m odern interpreters. If the preposition ‫ ע ל‬m eans “with,” the use o f “e a t” instead o f “d rin k ” indicates that “the blo o d ” refers to either a pudding o f blood or m eat laden with blood. While ‫ על‬may have this m eaning, the object of the preposition ‫ ע ל‬is usually jo in e d with a nam ed

320

L e v it ic u s 1 9 :1 -3 7

substance th at stands as the direct object of “ea t” (e.g., Exod 12:8; N um 9:11; cf. Ezek 33:25). A n o th er in te rp re ta tio n takes ‫ ע ל‬to m ean “over” (cf. Füglister, “S ühne,” 151-52). In the worship o f chthonic deities, the anim al was sacrificed on the ground, ra th e r than on an altar or stone, and the blood drained into a deep trench dug o u t n ear the place o f sacrifice and allowed to soak in before the m eat from th at sacrificial anim al was eaten (cf. 1 Sam 14:31-34; J. Grintz, A S T I8 [1972] 85). This blood rite was to draw the spirits to the surface and to enhance th eir power o f foretelling. Since the following prohibitions concern some type of divination involving the use of blood, this interpretation has great weight. A nother possibility is to follow the alternative reading o f ‫ א ל הרם‬, “on the m ountains,” in place o f “on the b lood” found in LXX. This variant may refer to sacred meals taken on hills in an effort to com m une with spirits o f those who had died (cf. D eut 12:2-3; Isa 57:7; 65:7). However, it is best to stay with the m ore difficult reading in the MT. T here are two prohibitions against the practice o f divination. ‫ נחש‬may be “augury,” the discerning o f the future by interpreting signs and prem onitions such as the m ovem ent o f animals, smoke rising from a censer, or the shape or movem en t o f metals. Joseph used a goblet (‫ )גביע‬for divination (‫ ;נחש‬Gen 44:2, 5, 15). O ne way such a goblet was used was to p o u r various liquids on water standing in the cup; its owner read the configurations form ed on the water. O ften occurring with ‫ נחש‬is ‫ ענן‬in the polel; it is an o th er term for divination, b u t the precise activity to which it refers is unknown. Two suggestions have been m ade ( TW O T 2:685). O ne is th at this term is related to ‫ ענן‬, “cloud,” a word with the same consonants. If this is correct, the future was d eterm ined by reading the m ovem ents o f clouds. T he o th er suggestion is that this is an onom atopoetic word for the sound that a necrom ancer makes while engaged in com m unicating with a spirit. Divination is soundly d en ounced th ro u g h o u t the Scriptures because it is constructed on the conviction th at there is an im personal force, som etim es called necessity o r fate, th at determ ines the destiny o f all things, including that of the gods (cf. D eut 18:9-12; Y. K aufm ann, The Religion of Israel, tr. M. G reenberg [Chicago: T he University o f Chicago Press, 1960] 21-24, 32-33). Such conviction denies th at God is all powerful. Therefore, participation in these kinds of practices undercuts the foundation of the revelation that Yahweh is the suprem e God, the sovereign Creator. Given the driving hum an thirst to know the future, however, practices o f divination, which were com m on am ong the o th er nations, were h ard to elim inate from Israel (cf. 2 Kgs 17:17; 21:6; Isa 2:6; 8:19; Ezek 22:9). 27 Hair is a sign of a person ’s vital force and beauty. The m anner of dressing o n e’s hair has strong cultural and religious overtones. Among some peoples, shaving or trim ming the hair in a certain style may be a symbol o f office; in o th er situations it is a sign o f m ourning (21:5; Deut 14:l;Jer 16:6; Ezek 44:20; Amos 8:10). Therefore, regulations regarding the cutting o f o n e ’s hair are germ ane to the Holiness Code. T he h air o f the tem ples shall n o t be ro u n d ed off. T he beard shall n o t be shaved close to the face. To this day m en o f very orthodox Jewish com m unities observe this statute by allowing long ringlets of hair to grow on the sides o f their faces. 28 T he body is a m arvelous creation o f God. Its wholeness represents the beauty an d perfection o f holiness. Thus the body is to be kept whole. It is n o t to be intentionally h arm e d or m arred in any way. Specifically p ro h ib ited is the pagan custom o f lacerating the body as a m eans o f m o urning (cf. D eut 14:1;

Comment

321

J e r 16:6; 41:5; 47:5; 48:37, which speak of Israelites gashing their bodies as p art o f their m ou rn in g rites). This practice was to increase o n e ’s sorrow. In S naith’s view (94), however, it was primarily done to offer blood to the departed spirit. A couple o f texts from Ras Sham ra speak about m ourners lacerating themselves ( UT 67 VL5-26; 6 2 :1 2 9 ‫) ־‬. In m ourning for Baal, El the Kind “cuts his skin with a razor; he cuts his cheeks and chin, he raked his arm s with a reed, he plowed his chest like a garden, he raked his back like a valley” (tr. M. Coogan, Stones from Ancient Canaan [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978] 109; H. Ringgren, Israelite Religion, tr. D. G reen [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966] 2 4 0 4 2 ‫) ־‬. L aceration may have been ineluded in the rites o f Baalistic fertility worship, especially when Baal appeared to be deaf to the pleas o f his followers (cf. 1 Kgs 18:28). M arking the body is also prohibited. While the exact m eaning o f ‫ ק ע ק ע‬is unknown, it could refer eith er to m aking tattoos on the body or to painting the body. Painting the body was a pagan practice. Those preparing to attend a ritual pain ted th eir bodies (C. G ordon, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilization [New York: W. W. N orton, 1965] 136, 168). Elliger (263) thinks this was done to ward off spirits o f the dead. Bodily m arkings also served as a sign of belonging to a certain cult (Noordtzij, 205). 29 A person in heavy debt m ight be tem pted to sell his daughter into prostitution in o rd er to raise a sum o f money. But such a practice profanes (‫ ) ח ל ל‬the ho n o r o f his daughter. This is prohibited, for the land itself would be prostituted (cf. 1 8 :2 4 2 7 ‫ ) ־‬and becom e full of ‫ז מ ה‬, “lewdness” (cf. 18:17). Sin fosters sin; prostitution draws to itself a host o f crimes (cf. D eut 2 3 : 1 8 1 8 ‫ ־‬19 [ 17‫ ;] ־‬Amos 2:7; Hos 4:14; Ezek 3 3 :3 7 3 9 ‫) ־‬. F urtherm ore, in ancient thinking such activity defiled the very land th at supported the wrongdoers. H ere is a tie back to 18:24-30. 30 This verse recurs in 26:2. T he people are to keep the Sabbath (v 30a/3) and to revere the sanctuary. Reverence for the sanctuary m eans to regard it as the place where God reveals him self in splendor and awe. It m eans that the people are careful to conduct themselves circumspectly whenever they are in its areas; e.g., anyone in a state o f uncleanness may never en ter its precincts. Reverence for the Tem ple also guards against the im portation o f pagan cultic practices into the precincts o f the Tem ple (e.g., Ezek 8; Noordtzij, 206). This law is im portant, for the operation o f the sanctuary is essential for the m aintenance of the covenant and for approaching God with the offerings required by the law. 31 T he Israelites are n o t to tu rn to ‫ א ב ת‬, “ghosts,” and □‫ידעני‬, “d eparted spirits,” for conversation and divination. In many places in the A ncient N ear East, com m unication with the dead was sought through m edium s and spiritists. ‫ פנ ה‬, “tu rn ,” is som etimes used o f turning to God b u t m ore often o f turning to o th er gods in worship (v 4; D eut 31:18, 20; Hos 3:1). T he second term , ‫בק ש‬, “seek,” in its religious usage expresses m aking significant effort in the worship o f God (2 Sam 21:1; Hos 5:6, 15; Zech 8 :2 1 2 2 ‫ ; ־‬b u t in Isa 8:19; 19:3 with ‫ אבות‬and □‫)יד עני‬. Noordtzij (207) observes that this is its only use in reference to spirits o f the dead. This language th en intim ates th at these seekers are endeavoring to inquire of Yahweh through contact with departed spirits (cf. S. Wagner, “‫ בקש‬biqqesh,” TOOT 2:238). T h e practice o f tu rn in g to d e p a rte d spirits in o rd e r to find special knowledge is witnessed to in the account o f Saul’s seeking ou t a witch in order th at he m ight speak with the deceased Samuel (1 Sam 28). Yahweh abhors such practices, for death is directly opposed to his very being as the living God.

322

L e v it ic u s 1 9 :1 -3 7

32 Persons with ‫שיבה‬, “silvery white hair,” are to be highly h o n o red (Prov 16:31; 20:29). Elders have the wisdom o f m uch experience. W hen such an elder enters the assembly, the people are to rise in h o n o r (cf. Jo b 29:7-10). Showing p ro p er h o n o r to the elders is an expression o f o n e ’s fear o f God. 3 3 -3 4 T he people are n o t to ‫הוכה‬, “m istreat” or “oppress” (cf. 25:14,17; Exod 22:20[21]; D eut 23:17[16]; J e r 22:3; Ezek 45:8; 46:18), foreigners residing in Israel. Since aliens are ignorant o f local customs, standards, prices, etc., and since they have little recourse in a dispute except for the h o n o r o f the host people, they are subject to all kinds of schemes devised to take advantage o f them . Israelites, however, are to have special regard for strangers. They are to love them as persons like themselves (cf. v 18), and they are to treat them like ‫ אזר ח‬, “natives.” ‫ אזרח‬m eans “one b o rn at hom e, a n atio n .” This com m and to love is m otivated by Israel’s rem em bering that they had been resident aliens in Egypt. This motivation underscores the com m on hum an bond between aliens and Israelites. 3 5 -3 6 T he general prohibition n o t to do injustice (also v 15aa) is applied h ere to th e use o f weights an d m easures. E verything used for d eterm in in g am ounts is to be exact or right (‫ ) צ ד ק‬according to the determ ined standard, ineluding scales, weights, and m easures of capacity and quantity. An easy way to practice deception in com m ercial transactions is to use false m easures (cf. D eut 25:13-16; Ezek 45:10-12). A c o rru p t m erchant would have two sets of weights and measures, using a bigger m easure for receiving and a smaller one for distribution (cf. Amos 8:5; Mic 6:10-11). Such a double standard increases profits greatly. Weak m em bers o f society are struck a double blow, getting fewer goods and paying m ore. Israel is to obey this law about ju st weights and m easures and all these laws as she rem em bers h er great God Yahweh, who bro u g h t h er out of Egyptian bondage. The grace God has shown Israel in redeem ing h er from slavery calls Israel to express h er gratitude by acting justly in all h er activities. T h at is, the high standard to which Yahweh calls the people o f Israel finds both its reasonableness and its greater authority in light o f how m uch he has done for them . 37 This verse is a concluding exhortation to put into practice the □‫ ח קי‬, “decrees,” and ‫מ שפטים‬, “laws,” given here, for they are identified as Yahweh’s expressed will. Explanation

This speech is a loud, clear, bold call to holy living. Israel, the people of the covenant, m ust pursue a holy life in order to serve their holy God. Holiness is the quintessential nature o f God. God alone is the Holy O ne, and his holiness is contagious. W hatever place he inhabits is holy (Isa 57:15). Thus, for him to dwell am ong his people they m ust make themselves holy. While their holiness derives from God himself, they are to prepare themselves so God will be present am ong them , sanctifying them . This call to holy living has four m ajor foci: T he covenant people are to worship God fervently with a single m ind. They are to love others. They are to practice justice and remove injustice. They are to avoid all falsehood and idolatry. A holy Israel worships Yahweh with a single m ind. T he people may n o t tu rn to o th er gods or make any graven images. They are to fear God alone. Fear of the holy God leads to trust. The devout trust God for protection and blessing. Since they com m it th eir destiny to God, they m ust never tu rn to divination o r witchcraft.

Comment

323

T he practice o f divination implies a lack of trust in the ability o f God to guide and protect them in the face of future upheavals. N or may the people of God seek to com m une with departed spirits, for God is God o f the living. Affirmatively the people m ust follow the prescribed regulations in o rd er n o t to profane G od’s holy nam e in the least. C oncern for holiness m eans that worship is conducted according to the regulations revealed by God. T he people are given daily patterns to follow in o rd er to o rient their thinking aro u n d the central them e: God is holy. T hat which is holy is pure. As a symbol of this purity, they are not to sow a field with two kinds of seed or make cloth out of two kinds of material. In the same m anner they are n o t to m ar themselves either by cutting their bodies or by tattooing them such as in times of deep m ourning. T he physical body, which sustains a p erso n ’s life, is to be kept whole as witness to the holiness o f its Creator. Scripture reveals that love and holiness are intertw ined. Holiness finds tan‫־‬ gible expression in loving. Holiness purifies hum an love to be a dynamic interest in the well-being o f an o th er person. Each Israelite is enjoined to love o n e ’s neighbor, a person like oneself. This com m andm ent is close to the golden rule: “Do u nto others as you would that they do to you” (Matt 7:12; Luke 6:31). Love keeps one from oppressing another. T he rich are to have concern for their laborers; they will n o t hold back the wages of a day-laborer. T he people are to have compassion for the handicapped; thus they are never to harm or take advantage o f a p erso n ’s handicap. Holy love moves the people to show mercy to the poor. An attitude o f concern expressed in giving overcom es greed and selfishness. Farm ers are n o t to harvest the corners of their fields or pick up the gleanings. N or are they to keep on harvesting their vines. Why? In ord er that the poor, the unfortunate, and foreigners m ight have the opportunity to com e to the fields and gather grain or fruit for their needs. These decrees tell us that those whom God blesses have an obligation to be m indful of the difficult circum stances of the poor. T he form ulation o f these decrees is am azing in the concern for the dignity o f the poor. T he p oor are given access to a food supply, bu t n o t as a hand-out; they have to go out to a harvested field and pick up the gleanings. O n their way hom e they can hold their heads high, for they have labored for that which they are bringing hom e. This practice teaches that we are to be m indful both of the needs o f the p oor and of their dignity as people for whom God cares. W hereas h atred leads one to bear grudges and seek vengeance, love destroys hatred. H atred eats o n e ’s character like a m alignant cancer, b u t love builds hum an character. Love is outgoing, with a genuine thoughtfulness for others. N ot only are Israelites to love their neighbors, b u t they are also to love the aliens. While th ere is natural inclination to be co ncerned for the welfare of a close com panion or an acquaintance, love for an alien is far from autom atic. People ten d to despise foreigners, treat them with disrespect, and, whenever possible, take advantage o f them . Israelites, conversely, are to show love for foreigners who live am ong them , treating them as citizens like themselves. A powerful motivation is jo in ed to this com m and. Israel is to rem em ber that she had been a slave in a foreign land when God reached down and delivered her. M em ory is a key m eans for und erstan d in g G od’s dem ands on his people. Sometim es the standard to which God calls his people seems unrealistically high. But m editation on what God has done for them rem inds the com m unity o f G od’s great, outreaching love,

324

L e v it ic u s 1 9 :1 -3 7

which has been expressed in his deliverance o f Israel from Egyptian bondage and his supplying their needs in trying circum stances. Since God has done so m uch for his people, he is in a position to ask them to do as m uch for others. W hen Israel heeds this call, they are acting like God to others. T h at is, to those whom they show kindness they are both com m unicating G od’s love and m aking themselves holy as God. T he speech contains laws based on the key teaching that God is the owner of the land (cf. chap. 25). H e grants Israel the right to be its long-term tenants as long as Israel follows the laws and precepts he has given. H e has even given some laws th at encourage the wise m anagem ent of the land, laws that especially counter the h um an drive to exploit the land in o rd er to amass wealth. O ne set o f precepts regulates the planting o f fruit trees. N one o f the fru it o f newly planted trees may be eaten for th ree years. T he produce from the fo u rth year m ust be given completely to Yahweh. T hen the farm er is given full use o f the harvest from the fifth year on. Observance o f this standard carries the prom ise th at the trees will yield a g reater harvest. G enuine love prom otes justice, and justice is the firm foundation o f holy love. T he u n io n o f justice and holiness keeps love from being sentim ental and justice from being cruel. Nevertheless, for love to be upbuilding it m ust be true to justice. Justice receives a key place in this speech. It is m en tioned both in specific decrees and in principle. T he courts are n o t to re n d er unjust decisions, and Israel is to have ju st weights and measures. This last standard is so fundam ental that m odern countries have bureaus o f weights and measures. It m ust be rem em bered that this standard was legislated in a society several thousand years ago. A lthough the prohibition “do n o t steal” is followed by the vast majority o f people, the tem ptation to increase o n e ’s incom e by falsifying the nature, quality, or quantity of a small item is strong and easily given into. In the case o f selling a product, a merc h a n t can increase profits by wide m argins by d ecreasin g th e m easu re fo r dispensing the p ro d u ct even slightly an d increasing the w eight for accepting paym ent. Amos soundly condem ned those m erchants who practiced this m ethod in his day (8:5). T he tem ptation to cut corners to o n e ’s own advantage and a n eig h b o r’s loss is strong in every era. But succum bing to this very h um an tendency leads one astray on the way o f holiness. Should the deviation becom e habitual, th at person leaves the holy way as surely as one who consciously breaks one o f the Ten C om m andm ents (cf. Jas 2:8-12). A holy people m ust certainly practice justice at court. They may n o t use the legal system to cloak their greed for gain and lust for power. H ere the lawgiver enjoins the people n o t to extend any favoritism to anyone, w hether that person is p o o r or great. This exhortation does n o t condem n m ixing mercy with justice based on principle and wisdom; rather, it is striving to m ake sure th at no person receives any special favors because o f nam e, position, wealth, o r power of persuasion. W hile the O T continually calls for the poor to receive justice, this injunction dem ands th at no favoritism be shown the p o o r in the legal system solely because they are poor. Judgm ents m ust be based on equal justice to every person before ju d g m en ts may be honorably tem pered with mercy. For justice to be done, the truth m ust be told. Thus there are several prohibitions about deceiving and speaking falsely. These prohibitions, of course, m ust be followed in co u rt proceedings. W hen a witness, eith er a plaintiff o r a defendant, is

Comment

325

questioned, th at p erso n ’s testimony is often backed up by an oath taken in G od’s nam e to confirm that p erso n ’s truthfulness. Should one swear falsely, G od’s nam e is belittled. T he swearer denies G od’s holy character ju st as surely as by worshiping an idol. T he principles underlying the precepts o f this chapter are affirm ed by the NT. Jesus identified love o f God as the first com m andm ent and love o f n eighbor as the second (M att 22:37-40; Mark 12:20-31; Luke 20:27-28). This second comm an d m en t is found echoed in o th er NT texts like Rom 13:9; Gal 5:14; and Jas 2:8. In Judaism at the time o f Jesus there was a great debate over who was o n e ’s companion o r neighbor, some groups favoring a broader definition than others. Jesus en tered th at debate; in the parable o f the Good Sam aritan, he broadened the definition o f neighbor to include anyone who stands in n eed o f help. F urther‫־‬ m ore, in the Serm on on the M ount, Jesus identifies o n e ’s enem ies, i.e., those who curse^hate, patronize, and persecute a believer, as the object of love (Matt 5:43-48). Jesus was both challenging the interpretation o f “acquaintance” by the scribes an d rabbis and also bringing ou t the full intend o f the Levitical law. Peter identifies the central them e o f this chapter as the keystone o f his epistle: “As he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; since it is written, ‘You shall be holy, for I am holy’” (1 Pet 1:15-16). For P eter as well as the o th er writers o f the NT, holiness is expressed in love. “Having purified your souls by your obedience to the tru th for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the h e a rt” (1 Pet 1:22). G enuine love am ong believers leads to unity o f spirit (1 Pet 3:8 j. Such love finds a host o f practical expressions such as the showing o f hospitality to one an o th er and to travelers (1 Pet 4:9). Motivated by love for God, believers m ust conduct themselves uprightly in ord er to h o n o r God in the com m unity (1 Pet 2:12). They are to avoid all evil, including m urder, theft, and causing m ischief (1 Pet 4:15). O th er NT texts em ‫־‬ phasize th at they are to be generous, abounding in deeds o f mercy, seeking to lay u p their treasures in heaven (Matt 6:19-21; 1 Tim 6:17-20). In giving, they emulate G o d ’s gift o f his son for the red em p tio n o f the h u m an race. Instead o f advancing their own positions, they are willing to suffer in o rd er to advance the kingdom o f God (1 Pet 1:13-14, 17). Christ him self is their highest example, m otivating them to en d u re hardship and suffering (1 Pet 2:21-24). In developing the call to believers to fulfill the royal law revealed in Scripture, Jam es is deeply influenced by Lev 19. L. Jo h n so n has dem onstrated that “Jam es m ade conscious and sustained use o f ’ vv 12-18 in his epistle (JBL101 [1982] 399): 19:12 19:13 19:15 19:16 19:17b 19:18a 19:18b

Jas 5:12 Jas 5:4 Jas 2:1,9 Jas 4:11 Jas 5:20 Jas 5:9 Jas 2:8

Jam es’s use o f Leviticus, however, is filtered through the teachings o f Jesus. The central ethical precept is to love o n e ’s neighbor as oneself (2:8). In so doing one avoids treating people with partiality (2:1, 9). N either does one defraud an o th er or hold back the wages o f a hired h an d (5:4). Because the tongue can cause so

326

L e v it ic u s

20:1-27

m uch havoc am ong hum ans, Jam es teaches that believers need to bridle the tongue, avoiding oaths and letting o n e ’s “Yes” be “Yes” and o n e ’s “N o” be “N o ” (5:12). All who follow this counsel n eith er slander (5:9) n o r speak evil of others (4:11). From Jam es’s perspective, then, Lev 19 is a guide for becom ing a person with a single m ind toward the Lord (1:8, 27). Paul, too, preaches that God has called his people in holiness (1 Thess 4:7). For him believers are to “abound in love to one an o th er and to all m e n ” (1 Thess 3:12). G od’s sanctifying presence at work in those who love him produces in them sound and blameless character (1 Thess 5:23). Both testam ents, therefore, consider holy living to be the highest expression o f a believer’s love for God.

D.

Law s w ith Penalties fo r Sacrifice to M olek, Sorcery, and Sexual Offenses (20:1-27)

Bibliography

See Bibliography for 18:1-30. Translation

1Yahweh spoke to Moses: 2 “Saya to the people of Israeli A nyc Israelited or any alien living in Israel who gives any o fe his children to Molek{ must be put to death.%The people of the land shall stone him. 3/ will set my face against that man. I will cut him off from his people, because he has given one ofa his children to Molek,h thusc defiling my sanctuary and profaningd my holye name. aI f the people of the land indeeda close their eyesfrom that kind of man whenever he gives his childh to Molekc by not putting him to death, 5/ a will set my face against that man and his family and will cut them off from their people, both him and all those who follow him to prostitute themselves after Molek.h 6I f a persona turns to ghostsh and departed spmtsc to prostitute himself after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut himd off from among his people:e 7 “Sanctify yourselvesa and be holy, because I am Yahwehh your God. 8Keep my decreesa and do them. I am Yahweh, your sanctifier. 9 “I fa anyoneb curses his father and his mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father and his mother; his bloodc is on him. 10I f a man commits adultery with his friend’s wifea both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.b 11I f a man lies with his father’s wife, he dishonors his fathera Both of them must be put to death; their blood is on them. 12I f a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have done that which is a perversion; their blood is on them. 13I f a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done that which is detestable. They must be put to death;a their blood is on them. 14I f a man takes a woman and her mother, it is a lewd act. Both he and the two women must be burned with fire so that no lewdness will be among you. 15I f a man has intercoursea with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal.b 18I f a woman approaches an animal to lie with

Notes

327

i t ayou shall kill the woman and the beast. They must be put to death; their blood will be on them. 17I f a man mames his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and they have sexual relations together, i t is a disgrace. They shall be cut off before the children of their people, for he has dishonored his sister and will bear the responsibilitya 18I f a man lies with a woman duúng her peúod and has sexual relations with her, he has uncovered her fountain, anda she has revealed the fountain of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people. 19Do not have sexual relations either with your mother’s sister or your father’s sister,afor that would shame a near relative. They will be held responsible. 20I f a man lies with his aunt, he dishonors his uncle. They will be held responsible for their sin;a they will dieh childless.c 2,1I f a man mames his brother’s wife, it is odiousa He has shamed his brother; they will beh childless. 22 “Keep all my decrees and laws and do them in order that the landa whereb I am banging you to dwell may not vomit you out. 23You shall not follow the decrees of the nationa which I am casting out before you; because they did all these things,h I am disgustedc with them. 24But I said to you, youa will inherit their land. I myselfa will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey. I am Yahweh your God, who has set you apart from the nations.b 25You shall distinguish between clean and unclean animals, between unclean and clean birds. Do not make yourselves detestable by any animal, bird, or anything that crawls on the ground, which I have set apart as uncleana for you. 26You will be holy to me, because I Yahweha am holyf and I have set you apart from the peoplesc to be mine. 27 “I f aa man or a woman among you is a necromancer or medium, theyh must be put to death. They shall be stoned; c their blood will be on them. " Notes 2.a. In place of MT ‫תאמר‬, “you will say,” Sam reads ‫תדבר‬, “you will speak”; one Heb. ms has ‫ תדבר לאמר‬, “you will speak saying.” 2.b. In this instance ‫בני ישראל‬, “the people of Israel,”comes first for emphasis (by contrast, e.g., 18:2). 2.c. The repetition of ‫ איש‬has individualizing force; cf. n. 17:3.a. 2.d. In place of MT ‫מבכי‬, “from the sons of,” Sam reads ‫מבית‬, “from the house of.” 2.e. The prep ‫מן‬, “from,” is used with partitive force (GKC §119w2). 2.f. LXX renders the term ‫למלך‬, “to Molek,” with ά ρ χ ο ντι, “to the ruler,” taking it as a title in participial form. 2. g. Cf. 18:21b. This inf abs before an impf strengthens the idea carried by the verb (cf. Exod 19:12; 21:12; 31:14). 3. a. Cf. n. 2.d. This phrase precedes the verb for emphasis. 3.b. Cf. n. 2.f. 3.c. The compound prep ‫ למען‬gives the effect, not the aim, of the action (Joüon §169g; cf. IB H S §38.3b, n. 25). 3.d. For MT ‫ולחלל‬, “and to profane,” Sam reads ‫וחלל‬, “and profane.” This variant could be a scribal error resulting from the number of 8‫ ל‬in this word. a 3. e. According to GKC §128p, ‫קדש‬, “holiness,” often is used as a periphrasis for the adj ‫קדוש‬, “holy.” 4. a. The inf abs stands before the verb to stress the willful, deliberate action of the people. 4.b. Cf. n. 2.d. 4. c. Cf. n. 2.f. 5. a. The personal pronoun is used with the verb to underscore God’s resolve. 5. b. In place of MT ‫ אחרי המלך‬, “after Molek,” LXX reads ε ι ς το ύ ς ά ρχ ο ντα ς, “to the rulers.” 6. a. This law is constructed similarly to the laws in 2:1 and 17:13 with the use of ‫נפש‬, “person” (Baentsch, 402). 6.b. Cf. n. 19:31.a. 6.c. Cf. n. 19.31.b.

328

L e v it ic u s

20:1-27

6.d. In place of MT ‫אתו‬, “him,” Sam and LXX read ‫אתה‬, “her,” for the antecedent. ‫נפש‬, “person,” is fem, but in support of MT see 2:1. 6. e. Sam and LXX read ‫עמה‬, “her people,” for MT ‫עמו‬, “his people”; cf. n. 6.d. 7. a. Sam and LXXa omit ‫והתקדשתם‬, ^ou are to sanctify yourselves.” This may be an error of haplography. 7. b. A few Heb. mss and LXX add ‫קדוש‬, “holy,” as in v 26. 8. a. Sam adds ‫ כ ל‬, “all.” 9. a. Sun (“Investigation,” 229) offers the best explanation for the initial ‫ ;כי‬he takes it to be an emphatic particle (cf. n. 18:29.a.). 9.b. Cf. n. 2.c. 9. c. Sam reads ‫דמו‬, “his blood,” a sg form for MT’s pi ‫דמיו‬. In other places in MT, □‫ ד‬is sg as Josh 2:19; Ezek 33:4. The use of ‫דם‬, “blood,” or ‫דמים‬, the plural for murder, communicates that the aggressor has poured out the victim’s life-force. That “blood” envelops the aggressor, clinging to his hands and his head (cf. 2 Sam 3:28-29; 1 Sam 25:33; cf. K. Koch, “Der Spruch ‘Sein Blut bleibe auf seinem Haupt’ und die Israelitische Auffassung vom vergossenen Blut,” V T 12 (1962) 405-9; his position is in response to H. G. Reventlow, “‘Sein Blut komme über sein Haupt,’” V7T0 (1960) 311-27). How may the community be freed from the power of shed blood? Only with the death of the murderer. Since his own blood rests on his head, it does not envelop another. 10. a. Some Heb. and LXX mss omit ‫איש אשר ינאף את״אשת‬, “a man who commits adultery with the wife of.” The variant is followed, for MT has resulted from an error of dittography (Bertholet, 71); but PIR (194) accepts MT, stating that the repetition is included for legal precision. Similarly, Fishbane (Biblical Interpretation, 169) holds that v lOab legally restricts the first clause by identifying the woman as the wife of a neighbor, but, as Sun (“Investigation,” 229-30) points out,‫ אשת איש‬means a “married woman,” making ‫אשת רעהו‬, “wife of his friend,” a tautology. Further, a few Heb. mss, Sam, and the versions read a waw on ‫אשר‬, “who,” in this variant. 10. b. In place of this verb in the sg, LXXa, Syr, and Vg read a pi verb as occurs in this phrase in w 11-13 and preferred by the compound subj. But in Heb. grammar the verb that stands before a compound subj may be in the sg form. Perhaps the versions preferred the pi form for a smoother transíation rather than because they had a different Heb. Vorlage. 11. a. The obj ‫ ערות אביו‬, “nakedness of his father,” stands before the verb for emphasis. 13.a. LXX appears not to have read the inf abs ‫מות‬, “dying.” 15.a. Cf. n. 18:20.a. 15. b. The dir obj comes before the verb for emphasis and to cast the verb ‫תהרגו‬, “you will kill,” to the end of the verse for greater emphasis. 16. a. Read ‫אתה‬, “with it,” for MT ‫אתה‬,“it” (Bertholet, 71). On ‫ רבעה‬cf. n. 18:23.e. 17. a. LXX reads ά μ α ρ τ ία ν κ ο μ ιο υ ν τ α ι, “they will bear [their] sin.” 18. a. Many Heb. mss, LXX, Tgmss, and Tg. Ps.-J. add a conjunctive waw here. This is the preferred reading. 19. a. Sam and LXX invert the order to read ‫ אחות אביך ואחות אמך‬, “your father’s sister and your mother’s sister.” This long obj stands before the verb for emphasis. 20. a. LXX omits ‫ חטאת ישאו‬, (lit.) “they will bear their sin.” 20.b. Sam reads ‫( יומתו‬hoph), “they must die.” 20.c. ‫ ערירי‬has traditionally been rendered “childless” from the root ‫ערר‬, “strip, expose, demolish.” In two of the passages in which this word occurs, namely Gen 15:2 and Sir 16:3, this meaning fits well. But in the two other occurrences of this word, which are in curse formulae, there is some doubt as to “childless” being the precise meaning. The difficulty is clearly seen in Jer 22:30. Jehoiachin (Coniah) was put under the curse “to be written down childless,” but he already had several children. 1 Chr 3:17-18 names seven sons, and a Babylonian tablet found near the Ishtar Gate in Babylon names five sons (S. Schultz, ‘Jehoiachin,” ISBE rev 2:976). Given this difficulty, other meanings for this term have been suggested. J. Fitzmeyer ( The Genesis Apocryphon o f Qumran Cave I, A Commentary, BibOr 18 [Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966] 163) proposes “stripped, despoiled.” Maarsingh (Leviticus , 180-81) gives “debased entwürdig.” Most versions, however, continue to render this Heb. term “childless,” but NEB translates this Leviticus passage as “they shall be proscribed” and Jer 22:30 as “stripped of all honor.” It is very possible that this term may have both a precise technical meaning, “childless,” and a more general meaning such as “despoiled.” The second, parallel curse in the Jeremiah text, “a man who will not have any success in his day,” supports this position, especially if this curse is intended as an amplification of the preceding one. It is also possible that the curse means to die as though he were childless. This would still be a harsh curse against any person, for in those times children were looked on as a valuable basis of security, namely to care for their parents during old age and to attend

Form/Structure/Setting

329

their grave after death. To be cursed as “childless” would mean then that none of this person’s children would bear these responsibilities for the person cursed, leaving him to suffer disgrace in his old age and unhonored in death. The Jeremiah passage supports this position, for the curse against Jehoiachin goes on to declare that he would not have a successor on the throne of David. 21.a. Cf. n. 12:2.c. 21. b. LXX reads ¿77ν θ α ν ο υ ν τ α ί, “they will die,” as in v 20. MT is preferred as the harder reading. It is possible to translate it “they will become childless.” 22. a. Sam places the subj before the dir obj, but the subj stands in its present location because of the unusually long relative clause that follows it. 22. b. The indeclinable ‫ אשר‬is resumed by the adv ‫שמה‬, “thereward.” 23. a. Some Heb. mss, Sam, and versions have a pi noun; both the sg and pi appear in 18:24-30, esp. v 28. 23.b. The dir obj appears before the verb for emphasis. 23. c. MT ‫ ואקץ‬is impf qal of ‫קוץ‬, “feel a loathing, sickening dread” (cf. Exod 1:12; Num 21:5; 22:3; 1 Kgs 11:25; BDB, 880-81). 24. a. The personal pronoun appears before the verb for emphasis and rhetorical effect. The pronoun ‫אתה‬, “you,” is set in opposition to ‫אני‬, “I,” with ‫אתננה‬, “I will give it.” 24. b. LXX adds π ά ν τω ν , “all.” 25. a. The inf with the prep, ‫ לטמא ל‬, functions as a gerund: “as (being) unclean” (GKC §1140). Sam, LXX, and Syr read ‫לטמאה‬, “for uncleanness,” though the versions may be rendering the Heb. into their respective languages rather than having a different Heb. text. 26. a. LXX adds b θ ε ό ς υ μ ώ ν , “your God.” 26.b. ‫קרוש‬, “holy,” is missing in Sam and a couple of Gk. mss. 26. c. Cf. n. 24.b. 27. a. Sam, LXX, Syr, and Tgmss read ‫ אשר‬in place of MT ‫כי‬. 27.b. LXX has ά μ φ ό τ ε ρ ο ι , “both,” which renders ‫שניהם‬, “two of them,” in several verses, such as w 11-13. 27.c. In place of MT ‫ באבן ירגמו אתם‬, Sam and LXX read ‫באבנים תרגמום‬, “you will stone them with stones.” Perhaps the variant is a better text, because it is more unusual. Generally the phrase ‫באבן‬, “with stone,” is in the sg (v 2; 24:23); the pronominal obj is sometimes attached to the verb and other times occurs with ‫את‬. Form /Structure/Setting

T he structure o f this speech may be outlined as follows: I. Introductory formula (v 1) II. Speech (vv 2 2 7 ‫) ־‬ A. Commission to speak (v 2aa) B. Speech proper (v 2a/3-27) 1. First set of laws (vv 2a/3-6) a. Sacrifice to Molek (vv 2a/3-5) b. Sorcery (v 6) 2. First parénesis, call to holiness (vv 7-8) 3. Second set of laws (vv 9-21) a. Cursing parents (v 9) b. Various sexual relationships (vv 10-21) 1) Laws carrying death penalty (vv 10-16) a) Adultery (v 10) b) Incest (vv 11-12) (1) Sexual relations with a father’s wife (v 11) (2) Sexual relations with a daughter-in-law (v 12) c) Male homosexuality (v 13) d) Marriage to a woman and her mother (v 14) e) Bestiality (vv 15-16) (1) By a male (v 15) (2) By a female (v 16)

330

L e v it ic u s

20:1-27

2) Laws carrying cut-off penalty (vv 17-18) a) Marriage to a sister (v 17) b) Sexual relations during menses (v 18) 3) Law carrying accountability—sexual relations with a paternal or a maternal aunt (v 19) 4) Laws carrying penalty of dying childless (vv 20-21) a) Sexual relations with an uncle’s wife (v 20) b) Sexual relations with a sister-in-law (v 21) 4. Second parénesis (vv 22-26) a. Exhortation to keep these laws (vv 22-23) b. Promise of taking possession of the land (v 24) 1) Promise proper (v 24a) 2) Expanded formula of Yahweh’s self-introducdon (v 24b) c. Command to distinguish between clean and unclean animals (v 25) d. Call to holiness (v 26) 5. Law against sorcery with death penalty (v 27) This speech has the pattern A:B::A':B'::A (A = laws an d B = parénesis). T he first set o f laws specifies the penalty for anyone who offers a child to Molek and for the com m unity that fails to punish anyone who offers a child to Molek (w 2a/3-5) and for sorcery (v 6). T he second set o f laws gives the penalties for cursing o n e ’s parents (v 9) and for various sexual offenses (vv 10-20). A com parison of the two sets o f laws (A + A') finds a chiastic pattern between their structures: specific laws:a general law::a general law:specific laws. In A, laws about offerings to Molek (vv 2-5) are followed by a law against sorcery in general (v 6). A', by contrast, begins with a categorical law against cursing o n e ’s parents (v 9) followed by laws against specific sexual offenses (vv 11-20). T he single law at the end against sorcery (v 27) form s an inclusio with the first set of laws. T he first set of laws (A) concerns sorcery, either by m aking sacrifices to Molek (cf. Excursus on Molek at v 2) or in com m unicating with d eparted spirits. Both kinds o f offenses are called ‫ לזנות אחרי‬, “w horing after” (v 5 and in v 6). T he penalty for sorcery is G od’s saying, ‫ונתתי את־פני בנפש ההוא‬, “I will set my face against that p erso n ”; it is interp reted as ‫ והכרתי אתו מק רב עמו‬, “I will cut him off from am ong his p eo p le.” This same double expression of a penalty occurs in v 3 and again in v 5 w ith slig h t m o d ificatio n s. T h ese sim ilarities in d ic a te th a t th e law in v 6 has been designed to be an integral m em ber o f the first set of laws. The laws in the second series are composed out of four elements: I case; II penalty; III reason; IV declaratory form ula. T he p attern for each decree is as follows: (v 9)

I, II, III, IV

(v 11) (v 12) (v 13) (v 14) (v 15) (v 16) (v 17) (v 18) (v 19) (v 20) (v 21)

I, III, II, IV I, II, III, IV I, III, II, IV I, IV, II, III I, II (twofold) I, II, II, IV I (expanded), IV, II, III, IV I, III (threefold), II I, III, IV I, II, IV, II I, IV, III, II

1. (v 10) I, II 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

F o rm /S tru ctu re/S ettin g

331

Laws 1 and 6 only have two elem ents, the case and the penalty. T he o th er laws are expanded with reasons and declaratory form ulae. T he sequence of I-IV occurs in the opening general law and in law 2 (vv 9, 12). Six o th er laws (vv 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 21) have all four elem ents, b u t in a variety of patterns. In law 7 (v 16) the penalty is stated and then restated in lieu of the reason because o f the nature o f the offense. Law 8 (v 17) has been expanded far m ore than any other; the case is stated and then restated in greater detail, and two declaratory form ulae are included. T he very full form of this law indicates both that there was special concern to guard against the m arriage of a m an to his half sister and that the courts required a m ore precise definition to enforce this law; thus some of these elem ents en te re d the law th ro u g h the centuries. In law 9 (v 18) the reason is repeated three times, driving the p oint hom e. Law 10 (v 19) has been adapted from a code o f laws like the one in chap. 18 (cf. vv 12-13) with the addition o f a reason and a penalty. These variations in the p attern of these laws is for rhetorical force. Based on subject matter, these laws seem to be random ly ordered. They, how‫־‬ ever, are held together both by key words and by the nature of the penalties. The prim ary threads uniting them are two words and a phrase: ‫שכב‬, “lie” (vv 11,12,13, 15 [‫]נתן שכבתו‬, 18 , 20 ), ‫ ל ק ח‬, “m arry” (vv 14, 17, 21), and ‫ ג ל ה ערוה־‬, “reveal the nakedness o f ” (vv 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; this is the key phrase in chap. 18). The webbing is m ade tighter by the way these term s are interchanged; e.g., ‫עררה‬, “nakedness,” the d om inant word in the latter portion o f these laws, appears in v 11, and ‫שכב‬, “lie,” the key term at the beginning, is used in v 18 and v 20. For clarity the speaker uses ‫ ק ר ב‬, “draw near,” over ‫שכב‬, “lie,” in v 16 to highlight the abnormal ch aracter o f bestiality. As far as the o rd e r is co n cern ed , these laws are arranged by decreasing severity of penalty. T he first seven laws (vv 9-16) carry the death penalty: ‫ מות יומת‬, “he will surely die.^’ Several times the death penalty is qualified by the declaratory form ula ‫ ד בד ב״‬, “ (their) blood is on (th em )” (vv 9, 11, 12, 13, 16). This form ula m eans both that the guilty are deserving o f death and that those who execute the penalty are free from any obligation for shedding the blood o f the guilty. Twice, the penalty is being “cut o ff” (‫ ;נכ ר ת‬vv 17, 18). The penalty o f the last two laws (vv 20, 21) is “childlessness” (‫) ע רי רי‬. In three laws (w 17, 19, 20), the declaratory form ula ‫ נשא עו ד‬, “one will be held guilty” (v 2 0 ,"‫ ) ח ט א‬, occurs to underscore the certainty that the penalty will be executed. T he single law at the end o f the speech (v 27) seems to hang free from any attachm ent to the im m ediate context. Why does this speech end with a single law? Perhaps this law becam e dislodged from the first set of laws by a scribal error, being preserved in the m argin of some m anuscripts. A scribe, no t knowing where to insert it, placed it at the end of the speech. A closer look, however, shows that it forms an inclusio with the first section (vv 2-6), for the term s ‫ או ב‬, “ghost, neerom ancer” and ‫ידעני‬, “departed spirit, m edium ,” occur in v 6 and the death penalty by stoning accords with v 2. In addition, the position of this law as the final word o f this speech accentuates the several prohibitions against sorcery found in chaps. 18-20 (18:21; 19:26, 31; 20:2-5, 6) by directing the h earers’ m inds back to these laws. Among these sets of laws there are two parenetic portions. The first one (vv 7-8) has an exhortation to holiness (v 7, as in 19:2) and an exhortation to obedience (v 8; cf. 18:4-5, 26, 30; 19:37; 20:22). Both exhortations are grounded with the

332

L e v it ic u s 2 0 :1 -2 7

form ula o f Yahweh’s self-introduction (cf. 18:2). T he second exhortation leads into the second set o f laws as the initial conjunction ‫ כי‬on v 9 signals (Feucht, Untersuchungen, 35; Elliger, 268). Because o f the close tie between vv 8 and 9, some place v 7 as the conclusion o f vv 2-7 and v 8 as the heading o f vv 8-21 (Feucht, 35; Elliger, 269-70). T he fact th at vv 7 and 8 are n o t form ulated as laws argues against this alternative analysis o f the structure. T he second parenetic portion (vv 22-26) is held together by the dual them es o f possessing the prom ised land and separation from the nations. This parénesis begins with an exhortation to keep all these laws, supported by a th reat (v 22) an d an in ju n ctio n against following pagan practices (v 23). N ext com es the prom ise th at God is soundly com m itted to giving Israel the land where she can live ‫ ה ב די ל‬, “separate,” from the o th er nations (v 24). Building on the key term ‫ ה ב די ל‬, “separate,” the speaker exhorts the people to m ake the distinctions (‫; ה ב די ל‬ v 25; 11:47) required by the dietary laws (chap. 11), for the dietary laws have been given to keep Israel apart from the defiling customs and laws o f h er neighbors (cf. chap. 11). This exhortation is com posed ou t o f several key term s found in those dietary laws; ‫ ט ה ר‬, “clean,” and ‫ ט מ א‬, “unclean,” are used five times along with ‫שקץ‬, “detestable,” and ‫רמש‬, “creep ” (cf. 11:10, 11, 12, 13, 20, 23, 41, 42, 43; and 11:44, 46 respectively for the last two w ords). T he inclusion of this exhortation establishes an arc between the laws o f holy living (chaps. 17-26) and the laws o f ritual purity (chaps. 11-15). This arc dem onstrates the close connection between these two m 2yor sections of Leviticus from the cultic perspective o f ancient Israel. This parénesis concludes with a general call to holiness with the prom ise that God will ‫ ה ב די ל‬, “set ap art,” his people from o th er peoples (v 26). T he co n ten t o f this speech, both the laws and the parenetic portions, is very close to th at o f chap. 18. The m ost obvious difference between these two speeches is th at the laws in chap. 20 state the penalties for the various offenses. Moreover, the laws o f chap. 20 cover a wider variety o f sexual transgressions. T he tone of the laws in chap. 20 is less passionate than that o f chap. 18 as conveyed by less colorful vocabulary and by bulkier form ulations. T he laws are also arranged differently. T he laws in chap. 18 begin with incest (vv 7-18) and tu rn to a variety of sexual offenses (vv 19-23), while the laws in chap. 20 are a m ixture o f decrees against sorcery, incest, certain types o f m arriages, and sexual offenses. These differences indicate that the focus of each speech is distinct. T he speech in chap. 18 is addressed to a fa th e r’s house, particularly to the head who has the responsibility o f enforcing them . This speech, by contrast, is delivered to the community, especially the leaders who are obligated to carry ou t the prescribed penalties. T he different orientation o f this speech m eans that it is n o t merely a copy o f the speech in chap. 18 with additions. A nother reason that two speeches dealing with sexual offenses are included is that the lawgiver wished to address this issue from differing perspectives in o rd er to prom ote family solidarity for the growth o f Israel into a strong nation in covenant with God. This speech is composed for the oral instruction of the congregation at the appropriate festivals. The penalties serve as a deterrent to such offenses. The reasons address the hearers’ ethical consciousness and sets their m inds against such activity. And the declaratory form ulae appeal to the au dience’s em otions by poignantly defining such acts as polluting or as incurring great guilt. T he speaker is earnesdy seeking to persuade the people from com m itting any o f these offensive activities.

Comment

333

Comment 2 This law against offering children to Molek applies to both citizens o f Israel and aliens living am ong them (cf. 18:21). In vv 2-4 the verb for assigning o n e ’s offspring o r children to Molek is ‫נתן‬, “give, assign, surrender, yield, leave.” This is a term with a wide range of meanings. Sometimes, though infrequently,‫ נתן‬may be used with the presentation o f som ething for the priests’ use in the cult (e.g., 5:16; 22:14; Exod 30:15; Ezek 20:28). In regard to the presentation of children to Molek, the verb is usually ‫ נתן‬or ‫ ה ע בי ר‬, “transfer” (cf. the Excursus on Molek below). T he use o f ‫ נתן‬here does n o t say m uch about the nature o f the sacrifice, but it does com m unicate the resolve o f the w orshiper to tu rn over a child completely to the control o f Molek. T here is a play on ‫ נתן‬for it is n o t only used three times for “giving” a child to Molek; it is also used in the idiom in v 3 in which Yahweh says, “I will set [‫ ]נתן‬my face against that m an.” T he choice o f ‫ נתן‬in this idiom underscores G od’s response to such a detestable offering; i.e., ju st as a person “gives” a child to Molek so will God him self “give” his personal attention to punish th at presenter. Making such a valuable offering to a pagan deity carries the death penalty. T he ‫ ע ם הארץ‬, “people o f the lan d ,” the citizens o f Israel (cf. 4:27), have the responsibility o f stoning the transgressor to death. This m eth o d o f execution dispersed the responsibility for carrying ou t the p u nishm ent th ro u g h o u t the community. According to tradition, this penalty was discharged by casting the guilty party from a high place; they stoned that person only if the fall was n o t fatal (H offm ann, 2:63). O T references to punishm ent by stoning include: biasphem ers (24:16; cf. 1 Kgs 21:9-14), breakers of the Sabbath (Num 15:35-36), idolaters (Deut 13:11 [10]; 17:5), incorrigible children (D eut 21:21), a bride who was n o t a virgin (Deut 22:21), a m an who lies with a betro th ed virgin and the b etro th ed virgin he forced (D eut 22:24), and an ox that gores a m an or a woman (Exod 21:28-29; W enham, 277).

Excursus: Molek Bibliography Baudissin, W. W. Jahve et Moloch: sive de ratione inter deum Israelitarum et Molochum intercedente. Leipzig: Fr. Guil. Gruneow, 1874. Bea, A. “K inderopfer für M oloch o d er für Jahw e?” Bib 18 (1937) 9 5 -1 0 1 .----------- . “M oloch in d en M aritafeln.” Bib 20 (1939) 415. Cazelles, H. “M olok.” DBSup 5 (1957) 1337-46. Cohen, S. J. D. “From the Bible to the Talmud: T he P rohibition o f Interm arriage.” HAR 7 (1983) 23-39. Daumer, G. Fr. DerFeuer- und Molochdienst der alten Hebráer ais urvaterlicher, legaler, orthodoxer Kultus der Nation. Braunschweig: Fr. O tto, 1842. Day, J. Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the OT. UCOP 41. Cambridge: University o f C am bridge Press, 1989. D horm e, E. “Le dieu Baal et le dieu M oloch dans la tradition biblique.” Anatolian Studies 6 (1956) 57—61. D ronkert, K. De Molochdienst in het Oude Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1953. Dussaud, R. “M elqart.” Syria 25 (1946-48) 205-30.------------ . “Milk, M oloch, M elqart.” RHR 49 (1904) 1 6 3 -6 8 .-------------. “Précisions épigraphiques to u chant les sacrifices d ’enfants.” CRAIBL (1946) 371-87. Ebach, J. H . “PGR = (Toten‫)־‬ Opfer? Ein Vorschlag zum Verstandnis von Ez. 43,7.9.” UF3 (1971) 3 6 5 -6 8 .------------ and Rütersw órden, U. “ADRMLK, ‘M oloch’ u n d BA’AL ADR: Eine Notiz zum Problem d er M oloch-V erehrung im alten Israel.” UF 11 (1979) 219-26. Eissfeldt, O. Molk als Opferbegriff

334

L e v it ic u s

20:1-27

im Punischen und Hebraischen und das Ende des Gottes Moloch. Beitráge zur Religionsgeschichte des A ltertum s 3. Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1935. Février, J. G. “Essai de reconstruction du sacrifice M olek.”/A 248 (1960) 1 6 7 -8 7 .------------ . “M olchom or.” RHR 143 (1953) 8-18. Ghillany, F. W. Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebraer. 1842. Green, A. R. W. The Role of Human Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. ASOR Dissertation Series 1. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1975. Heider, G. C. The Cult ofMolek: A Reassessment. JSO TSup 43. Sheffield: University o f Sheffield Press, 1985. Hoftijzer, J. “Eine Notiz zum Punischen K inderopfer.” VT8 (1958) 288-92. Jirku, A. “Gab es im AT einen G ott Molek (M elek)?” A R W 35 (1938) 178-79. Kaiser, O. “D en E rstgeborenen d ein er S óhne sollst d u m ir geben: E rw águngen zum K inderopfer im Alten T estam ent.” In Denkender Glaube: FS C. H. Ratschow. Ed. O. Kaiser. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1976. Kornfeld, W. “D er M oloch: Eine U ntersuchung zur T h eo rie O. Eissfeldts.” WZKM51 (1952) 287-313. Lówengard, M.Jehova, nicht Moloch, was der Gott der alten Hebraer. 1843. Moore, G. F. “Biblical Notes: 3. T he Im age o f Moloch.” JBL 16 (1897) 1 6 1 -6 5 .------------ . “M olech, M oloch.” In Encyclopaedia Bíblica. Ed. T. K. Cheyne an d J. S. Black. NY: MacMillan, 1902. Mosca, P. G. “Child Sacrifice in C anaanite an d Israelite Religion: A Study in Mulk and mlk.” Diss., H arv ard University, 1975. Platarod, D. “Zum G ebrauch des Wortes MLK im Alten T estam ent.” VT 28 (1978) 286-300. Pope, M. “T he Cult o f the D ead at U garit.” In Ugarit in Retrospect. Ed. G. D. Young. W inona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981. Ratosh, J. in Scripture or the L and o f Ifbrym” (H eb.). Beth Mikra 47 (1970/71) 549-68. Ribar, J. W. “D eath Cult Practices in A ncient Palestine.” Diss., University of Michigan, 1973. Schaeffer, C. F. A. “Sacrifice á M‫־‬l‫־‬k, M olech ou M elek.” In Ug4. Ed. C. F. A. Schaeffer. MRS 15. Paris: Im prim erie N ationale, 1962. Schlógl, N. “Das W ort molek in Inscriften u n d Bibel.” WZKM 45 (1938) 203-11. Schmidtke, F. T ra u m e , O rakel u n d Totengeister ais K ünder der Zukunft in Israel u n d Babylonien.” BZ n.s. 11 (1967) 24046. Smith, M. “A N ote on B urning Babies.” /AOS 95 (1975) 477-79. Snaith, N. H. ‘T h e Cult o f M olech.” VT16 (1966) 123-24. Soggin, J. A. “Child Sacrifice an d the C ult o f the D ead in the O ld T estam ent.” In Old Testament and Oriental Studies. BibOr 29. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1975. Stager, L. E. “Carthage: A View from the T o p h et.” In Phonizier im Westen. Ed. H. G. Niemeyer. M adrider Beitráge 8. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1982. ------------ . “T he Rite of Child Sacrifice at C arthage.” In New Light on Ancient Carthage. Ed. J. G. Pedley. A nn Arbor: University o f M ichigan, 1980. ------------an d Wolff, S. R. “Child Sacrifice at C arthage—Religious Rite o r P opulation C o n tro l?” BAR 10 (1984) 30-51. Vermes, G. “Leviticus 18:21 in A ncient Jewish Bible Exegesis.” In Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory ofJoseph Heinmann. Ed. J. Petuchowski. Jerusalem : Magnes, 1981. 108-24. Weinfeld, M. “B urning Babies in A ncient Israel: A R ejoinder to M orton S m ith’s Article in JAOS 95 (1975), pp. 477-79.” UF 10 (1978) 411-13. ------------ . T h e M olech Cult in Israel and Its B ackground.” In Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress ofJewish Studies. Ed. P. Peli. Jerusalem : W orld U nion of Jewish Studies, 1 969.-------------. “T he Worship o f M olech and o f the Q ueen o f H eaven and Its B ackground.” UF 4 (1972) 133-54. ______ . “M oloch, C ult o f.” Encjud 12:230-32. Wilke, F. “K in d ero p fer u n d kultische Preisgabe im ‘Heiligkeitsgesetz’.” In Festschrift zur 57. Versammulung deutscher Philologen und Schulmanner in Salzburg, 1929. Vienna: R udolf M. Rohrer, 1929. T he term ‫ מ ל ך‬, “M olek,” occurs five times in Leviticus plus th ree times in o th e r O T texts— 1 Kgs 11:7, 2 Kgs 23:10, a n d je r 32:35; b u t the occurrence in 1 Kgs 11:7 is considered by m ost scholars to be the result o f a textual erro r for ‫ מ ל כ ם‬, “M ilcolm” (BHS). T he understanding of this term has been debated for a long time. Many scholars have postulated that the spelling of this deity’s nam e should be M elek o r Malik, m eaning “king”; this position began with A. G eiger (Urshrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel [Breslau, 1985] 301 sited by Day, Molech, 56). A ccording to these scholars, the p o in tin g ,‫ מ ל ך‬, came ab out as a result of the polem ic against idolatry. They h old th at the biblical w riters’ h atred for Baal and o th er pagan deities som etim es led them to substitute ‫ בשח‬boset, “sham e,” for Baal; e.g., the nam e Ishbaal (1 C hr 8:33; 9:39) is spelled Ish-bosheth in

C om m ent

335

2 Sam 2:10. In o th er texts these writers overwrote the nam e o f a deity with the vowels o f boset; e.g., the nam e Astarte < Astart is changed to A shtoreth (Day). Several scholars have challenged this explanation (e.g., M. Tsevat, “Ishbosheth an d Congeners: T he Names and T heir Study,” HUCA 46 [1975] 71-87). H eid er ( Cult ofMolek, 223-28) even claims th at ‫ מ ל ך‬, a participle, is the correct form o f this deity’s nam e. Day (56-58), however, has refuted the alternative positions and has re tu rn e d to the explanation th at the pointing in the MT is a caricature of this deity. Interpretations of the worship practices to Molek have likewise varied widely. Even the early rabbinic tradition h ad differing interpretations. In a com m ent on D eut 18:10, R. Ju d a h ben Elai (A.D. second century) understood th at in this worship children were dedicated to a pagan god. A nother rabbinic tradition in terp reted Lev 18:21 as a prohibition against m ixed m arriages in o rd er to curtail idolatry (cf. m. Meg. 4.9). A third view understood th at Lev 18:21 prohibited sexual intercourse with a cult prostitute. T he rabbinic tradition as a whole, thus, did n o t believe th at children were p u t to death. But in 1686Jo h n Spencer challenged this position by asserdng that in this cult children were p u t to death by fire (in De legibus Hebraeorum Htualibus et earum rationibus [HagaeConitum i: A rnold Leers, 1686]). His position received su p p o rt from accounts o f child sacrifice at Carthage; cf. F. M ünter, Religion der Kathager (2d ed. [C openhagen: Jo h n H einrich Schubothe, 1891]) and F. C. Movers, Die Phónizien (Bonn: E duard Weber, 1841). W. W. Baudissin (1874) added to the discussion the claim th at the Phoenicians transm itted the worship of Molek to Israel. In 1935 O. Eissfeldt p u t forth a new explanation for ‫ מ ל ך‬, “m olek,” postulating th at it was a technical term for a particular kind of sacrifice, n o t the nam e o f a deity. In his ju dgm ent, only as a result of Jo siah ’s reform did Molek becom e w orshiped as a deity. M. W einfeld challenged Eissfeldt’s position and revived the hypothesis th at the cult of Molek did n o t involve child sacrifice (Encjud 12:230-32). H e also challenged the claim that this cult and its practices cam e from Phoenicia o r Carthage. For him the cult of Molek involved the dedication o f children to A dadmilki, Ishtar, an d the King an d Q ueen of Heaven. W orking from an o th er direction, P. Mosca d efended Eissfeldt’s thesis o f a m olk type of sacrifice. H e reconstructed a cult o f child sacrifice, which had its roots in Phoenicia and Canaan and which was sanctioned by the official Yahwistic cult u p until 722 B.C. in the N orth and until Josiah ’s reform in the South. G. C. H eider n ext theorized that the worship of M olek in Israel developed from a Syro-Palestinian deity Malik, later M ilku/i or Molek, which was w orshiped as a chthonic deity in Mesopotamia, Mari, Ugarit, and Israel. J. Day takes a similar position arguing strongly th at Israel took this cult over from the Canaanites ( Molech, 24-31). These studies in Molek have raised several fundam ental questions; am ong them , were children actually sacrificed and was Molek a deity o r a type o f sacrifice? T he laws in Lev 18:21 and Lev 20:2-5 against giving children to Molek are tersely constructed. T he two key term s for the act o f w orship involving children are ‫נתן‬, “give” (20:2, 3, 4), and ‫ ה ע בי ר‬, “cause to pass through or over, transfer” (18:21). Because these term s have a wide range of usage in the OT, their precise m eaning has to be determ ined in o rd er to help define the nature o f this worship. From o th e r texts regarding Molek, some inform ation on the usage o f these term s is gained. In 2 Kgs 23:10,‫בא ש‬, “with fire,” is added to ‫ ה ע בי ר‬, “cause to pass through, over, transfer,” to m ake clear th at the childsacrifice was indeed b u rn ed (cf. 2 Kgs 16:3, 17:17; 2 C hr 33:6; D eut 18:10; N um 31:2223). This passage testifies that a m ajor center for such sacrifices was the Fire-Pit or T ophet (‫ ) ת פ ת‬in the Valley o f H innon. M ore is learned about practices at the Fire-Pit from Jerem iah, who preach ed fervently against that worship. In 32:35 he condem ns the transfer o f children to Molek on ‫ ב מו ת ב ע ל‬, “the high places o f Baal” (cf. 26:29-33), in the Valley o f H innon. In 7:31 he speaks against those who have built ‫ ב מ ת תפת‬, “the high places o f the Fire-Pit,” in the Valley of H innon to b u rn their children by fire (‫ באש‬. . . ‫ ) ש רף‬. In 19:5 he categorizes the

336

L e v it ic u s

20:1-27

b u rn in g o f children by fire on the high places o f Baal as “whole offerings” to Baal (‫) ע לו ת ל ב ע ל‬. T hese references unequivocally testify th at children were actually b u rn ed in offerings m ade to Molek and to Baal. T he reference to offering children to Baal is co rro b o rated by Punic texts th a t speak o f hu m an sacrifices to Baal-ham m on (Day, Molech, 24-37). U nfortunately the relationship between Molek an d Baal in the m aking o f this type o f sacrifice is n o t clear. J. Day argues convincingly that, th o u g h certain practices in the cult of Molek were similar to those in the cult o f Baal, Molek was a distinct deity and was n o t confused with Baal ( Molech, 34-36). Texts from Ezekiel add fu rth e r support to the position th at children were actually b u rn ed . Ezek 16:21 speaks o f ‫שחט‬, “slaughtering,” children an d m aking them offerings (‫)נ תן ב ה ע בי ר‬.‫ ש חט‬, “sacrifice,” is the critical term , for it denotes ritual slaughter (cf. Ezek 20:25-26, 31). This text suggests th at children were ritually killed before they were b u rn ed , and it adds to the evidence that in cultic contexts ‫ ה ע בי ר‬is a technical term for the sacrifice o f children. W hile Ezekiel does n o t nam e Molek, th e term s describing th e practice of offering children are so similar to the above references th at M olek may be included am ong the idols m entioned in 20:31 and 23:37. F urtherm ore, Day (Molech, 16) points o u t that Isa 57:5-9, w here Molek is m entioned, also uses ‫שחט‬, “slaughter,” for the killing o f children. A dditional support may be gained from o th e r passages th at speak o f offering up children even though Molek is n o t specifically nam ed. D eut 12:31 witnesses to some practice o f b u rn in g children by Israel’s neighbors. This practice is portrayed as similar to the offering of children to Molek. In addition, 2 Kgs 16:3, 17:17, an d 21:6 add significant data. They record that eith er a person or the people “caused [their sons a n d / o r daughters] to be transferred by fire” (‫ באש‬. . . ‫) ה ע בי ר‬. To these texts Day adds Isa 30:33 as a witness to b u rn in g the sacrifice u n to destruction ( Molech, 17); the cultic language here implies a reference to Molek worship. T hese secondary witnesses add su pport to the position th at the children were consum ed by fire. In light o f these texts, ‫ ה ע בי ר‬functions as a technical term in cultic texts, m eaning “to transfer” a sacrifice to a deity by burning. W hen ‫ב א ש‬, “in fire,” occurs with ‫ ה ע בי ר‬, it is apparently for emphasis. T he inclusion o f that phrase is n o t req u ired fo r ‫ ה ע בי ר‬to m ean th at the sacrifice was actually k illed .‫נתן‬, “give, m ake,” is a general term focusing on the presentation o f the sacrifice, both the will and the act o f m aking the sacrifice. As for the question of w hether Molek stands for a type o f sacrifice o r the nam e o f a deity, the phrase ‫ זנות אחרי‬, “to go w horing after,” in Lev. 20:5 definitely suggests a deity, n o t a type o f sacrifice, for this phrase is often used for Israel’s pursuing o th e r gods (e.g., Exod 34:15, 16; D eut 31:16; Ezek 6:9; 20:30). In addition, W einfeld has clearly d em onstrated that nam es such as ‫ מ ל ב אמ ר‬o r ‫ מ ל כ א ד ם‬, which Eissfeldt an d de Vaux em ploy to support a m olk type of sacrifice, are b etter un d ersto o d as th eo p h o ric nam es, supporting the position that Molek was the nam e o f a god (Encjud 12:231). A puzzling issue is why these laws against sacrificing children to M olek in Leviticus occur am ong laws regulating incest, o th e r illicit sexual relations, an d practices o f soothsaying. First, it may be postulated th at ju st as violations o f the standards o f incest an d sexual m orality could th reaten the solidarity o f a clan o r at least cause great discord am ong family m em bers, as the incident o f A m non an d Tam ar did in David’s family (2 Sam 15-19), so too could the offering o f children to Molek th reaten a clan ’s solidarity o r cause great discord am ong family m em bers. Second, these laws on Molek com e am ong laws on incest an d illicit sexual practices because both were considered a b h o rre n t and extrem ely defiling. See the com m entary for the vocabulary pertaining to the various kinds o f defilem ent identified with these violations in Lev 18 and 20. Specifically in regard to Molek worship, b o th 2 Kgs 23:10 an d J e r 32:35 classify such sacrifices as ‫ תו ע ב ה‬, “a detestable act” (cf. Lev 18:22, 26, 27, 29, 30; 20:13). ‫ תועבה‬depicts the terribleness of the sacrifice o f children also in 2 Kgs 16:3. In Lev 20:3 the giving o f children to Molek is said to defile (‫ ) ט מ א‬the sanctuary an d

C om m ent

337

to profane (‫ ) ח ל ל‬G od’s holy nam e. T hus this offense carried the d eath penalty (Lev 20:2) as well as G od’s personal jud g m en t, n o t only against those w orshipers b u t also against those Israelites who tolerated such worship (20:3, 5). T hird, these practices may occur together because the Israelite social consciousness connected them . A witness to such a connection in a society’s outlook com es from a very distant land. A ccording to R. Fox (Red Lamp of Incest, 32-34), th e Chiricahua, an A m erican Indian tribe who lived in the Southwest, treated b o th incest an d w itchcraft as the gravest violations o f both the spiritual an d the social orders. Given the position discussed in reason four, th at Molek worship was a kind o f witchcraft, the parallel between Israel and the C hiricahua may offer insight into the o rientation o f Israel’s social consciousness. Fourth, justification for the placem ent o f these prohibitions may reside in the nature o f Molek worship, nam ely its connection with ancestral worship. In several texts the sacrifice o f children stands in conjunction with soothsaying an d necrom ancy (Lev 20:26; D eut 18:10; 2 Kgs 17:17; 21:6; 2 C hr 33:6). Working with this evidence, H eider postulates that there was a cult of the dead practiced in C anaan and in Israel. Ps 106:28b, an interpretation of the event recorded in N um 25, speaks o f the Israelite’s jo in in g in a Moabite festival and eating sacrifices offered to the dead. H eider (Cult of Molek, 388-89) interprets this ritual as a ‫ מ רז ח‬, “funeral feast” (cf. Amos 6:7; J e r 16:5). Isa 63:3-5a describes w orship that took place at night in secret with a m eal o f pork an d b ro th m ade from unclean things, heightening the occultic dim ensions o f this worship. This text provides an o th er witness to the worship o f the dead. From this evidence, H eider posits that Molek worship was related to these feasts for the dead. T herefore, Molek worship may be associated with ancestral worship, m aking it m ore u nderstandable why these laws against Molek have been placed with o th e r laws regarding intim ate family matters. This interpretation of Molek w orship makes intelligible the jo in in g o f a law against necrom ancy with the laws against Molek in 20:2-6, for a prim ary goal o f necrom ancy was com m unication with deceased relatives. How m uch o f H eid e r’s reconstruction o f the n ature o f Molek w orship may be accepted is o p en to question since it is quite speculative. Nevertheless, it gains significant suppo rt from the evidence presented by Day ( Molech, 46-55, 58-64) that M olek was an underw orld deity intimately associated with the worship of the dead. These reasons for the context o f the laws on M olek worship are n o t m utually exclusive. In light o f any one or m ore o f them these laws fit th eir context. (This has been p repared with extensive help from Tim othy R. Dwyer, Ph.D., formerly a student of Prof. J. M ilgrom, the University o f California at Berkeley.)

3 God him self turns against any person who offers a child to Molek by cutting that person off (‫ )נכ ר ת‬from the people. T he reason is that such a gross sin both defiles (‫ ) ט מ א‬the sanctuary (cf. 16:33) and profanes (‫ ) ח ל ל‬G od’s holy nam e. The phrase ‫שם קדשי‬, “my holy n am e,” lit. “nam e o f my holiness,” com m unicates that the essential characteristic of God is “holiness”; cf. 19:2. T he twofold description o f the defiling nature of such an act is founded on the close connection between God and the Tem ple, where he is enthroned. If the com m unity puts the guilty party to death (v 2), what does this statem ent about G od’s punishing such a person add? Ibn Ezra offers the explanation that if the abom inable practice o f offering children to Molek is n o t punished, God him self will en ter the picture and cut off that person from the m idst o f his people. But then, as H offm ann notes (2:64), vv 4-5 lose their im pact. A second and better explanation p u t forth by Ibn Ezra is that this additional punishm ent results in the rooting o u t o f this perso n ’s descendants. But nothing in this context indicates th at such a transgressor’s offspring are to be punished. R ather this verse

338

L e v it ic u s

20:1-27

expresses G od’s extrem e loathing o f such a transgression. H e personally excludes such a person from the covenant community, m eaning th at that person will have no n e o f this com m unity’s benefits in the age to come. The use o f the term ‫ז ר ע‬, “seed, offspring, family,” for the child offered to Molek is p re g n a n t with m eaning. G od m ade the first prom ises o f the covenant to A braham and to his ‫ז ר ע‬, “seed” (Gen 12:7; 15:18; 24:7; cf. 13:15; 28:3,13-14), and he established the covenant with A braham and his seed after him (Gen 17:7; cf. w 8-14). A braham was then instructed to circumcise Isaac, his seed, as the seal o f the covenant (cf. H. Preuss, “‫ זרע‬zard; ‫ זרע‬zerrf,” TDOT 4:151-52). Preuss says, “Thus zerd articulates m ore than m ere blood relationship, a shared heritage and growth; it also indicates m ore than the intim ate solidarity of the individual with the fathers and the people. It expresses an organic cohesion within history und er the same God, u n d er his guidance in ju d g m en t and salvation, the unfolding into the future o f the gifts given and prom ised to the fathers by Yahweh, and the assurance o f standing in this heritage an d being able to apply it to o n e se lf’ (Preuss, TDOT 4:162). This m eans that the prom ise is never given to a patriarch alone, b u t it is for his descendants as well. His seed is G od’s blessing and is the continuation o f the promise. Consequently, when an Israelite offers any o f his seed to Molek, he thwarts G od’s purpose at the very source of its continuance. It is for this reason that God sets such stern penalties for engaging in Molek worship. 4 -5 If the people of the land take the easy path and ignore anyone’s offering a child to Molek by n o t putting the guilty person to death, God him self will punish the guilty party and the entire family (‫ )מ שפחה‬who make such a disgusting sacrifice (cf. Exod 20:5). The intentionality o f the p eo p le’s looking the o th er way is underscored by the hiphil in f abs ‫ ה ע ל ם‬, “closing [their eyes],” standing before the verb “close” (‫)יעלי מו‬. Those who make such an offering are said to ‫זנה אחרי‬ ‫ ה מ ל ך‬, “prostitute themselves after M olek.” They so zealously set their affections on the worship o f Molek that they forsake their love for Yahweh. 6 God him self turns against any person who ‫ זנה אחרי‬, “prostitutes him self’ (cf. v 5), by pursuing com m unication with ‫ א ב ת‬, “ghosts,” and ‫ידענים‬, “d ep arted spirits” (cf. 19:31). T he penalty for such action is to be cut off from the people (cf. 7:21). 7-8 Cf. 11:44; 19:2. Structurally this b rief parénesis both concludes the laws against sorcery and heads the next section about sexual offenses. Instead o f pursuing Molek worship and seances, the people m ust ‫ ה תקד ש‬, “sanctify them selves.” They sanctify themselves each time they obey the laws given by God. Sanctification involves affirmative action; it is exercising o n e ’s will to do G od’s will. Sanctification is also pursued by consciously avoiding any activity that defiles. Standing at the head o f the family laws, this call to holiness also teaches that how one treats o n e ’s parents and how one conducts oneself in sexual relationships directly affect the developm ent o f o n e ’s character. Holiness is practiced at hom e as well as at the sanctuary. Thus every time the people obey G od’s word, they activate the sanctifying presence o f God in their midst. Yahweh does the sanctifying; he is present am ong his people as the Holy God. 9 No person may curse his father or his m other, for such action flagrantly violates the com m andm ent to h o n o r o n e ’s father and m other (Exod 20:12; Lev 19:3). It is noteworthy that both parents are m entioned in this law, thus placing the parents on equal footing. Such form ulation prom otes the value of wom en both in ancient and in m odern times. ‫ ק ל ל‬, “to curse,” m eans to pronounce an

Com ment

339

oath against another, im ploring the forces of nature to bring on that person the h arm defined in the curse. For example, a child may curse his parents’ crops or their handicraft so that they fail and his parents go hungry. O r out of jealous anger he may curse som ething they are undertaking, such as a long journey, building a new house, or adopting a child, so that their plan m ight end in disaster. Such a curse is flagrant rebellion against parental authority (cf. Elliger, 275). Such cursing carried the death penalty (cf. Exod 21:17; Prov 20:20; D eut 21:1821; M att 15:4; Mark 7:10). T hat the one who curses is worthy of the death penalty is affirm ed by the phrase ‫ ד מיו בו‬, “his blood is on him .” O ften the form ula is ‫ ברא שו )יהוד( דמיו‬, “his blood be on his h ead .” It m eans that this person has for‫־‬ feited his right to life (Josh 2:19; Ezek 33:4). This phrase also com m unicates that whoever punishes the guilty person by taking his life does n o t com e u n d er the laws o f blood revenge. Given the position of this law at the head of the laws on sexual offenses, it is possible the speaker saw that violating a close relative’s wife or com m itting a sexual offense is similar to cursing o n e ’s parents, for such offenses sham e the parents and th reaten the solidarity of that family. 10 Cf. 18:20; D eut 22:22. 11 A son is n o t to have intercourse with his fa th e r’s wife, eith er his own m o th er or an o th er wife of his father. T he reason is th at she bears his fa th e r’s ‫ ע רו ד‬, “nakedness.” Cf. 18:8; D eut 23:1(22:30); 27:20; Ezek 22:10. Both parties are subject to the death penalty. This penalty implies that the woman encouraged or at least consented to h er hu sb an d ’s son’s advances. 12 If a father lies with his daughter-in-law, he violates his son’s honor. Such an act is labeled ‫ ת ב ל‬, “a confusion”; bestiality is also so labeled in 18:23. Cf. 18:15; Ezek 22:11. 13 Male hom osexuality is identified as ‫ תועב ה‬, “som ething detestable, repugn a n t” (cf. 18:22). Such an act carries the death penalty. 14 T he m an who ‫ ל ק ח‬, “takes,” both a woman and h er m other is to be b u rned (cf. 18:17). In this context W enham (280) understands ‫ ל ק ח‬to carry the m eaning “to live w ith” instead of its technical m eaning “m arry,” for he believes that no such union would have been given public sanction. T he punishm ent prescribed is the b u rn in g o f the m an and the two women; this punishm ent, though, may n ot be in place of stoning but in addition to it, i.e., b urning the corpse (cf. Josh 7:15, 25; Lev 21:9; Ju d g 14:15; 15:6; Gen 38:24). “B urning” deprived these offenders of a p ro p er burial and thus increased significantly their punishm ent in the eyes o f ancient man. It also cleansed the land from the defilem ent of such ‫זמה‬, “a lewd act” (cf. 18:17; H offm ann, 2:71-73). B urning as a form of punishm ent may go back to G od’s use of this m eans to p u t tb death those who dared to en ter the sanctuary with som ething foreign or those who brazenly challenged his purpose (e.g., 10:12; Num 16:35). The fem inine plural accusative ‫אתהן‬, “th em ,” m eans that both wom en m ust die. T he question o f why both wom en should be p u t to death has greatly troubled the rabbis, because m arriage to one of the wom en was legal; only m arriage to the second one was illegal. Jewish tradition has various interpretations for this. R. Ishm ael argues that only the last one m arried is subject to the death penalty; he interprets ‫אתהן‬, “th em ” to m ean “one or the other.” But R. Akiba understood ‫ אתהן‬to m ean “both w om en.” Rashi (93, n.) reasons that both wom en were forbidden to the m an, for he had been previously m arried. A nother

340

L e v it ic u s

20:1-27

possible reason for both wom en com ing u n d e r penalty is th at since they are m o th er and daughter, some schem ing am ong them for such a living arrangem en t to take place is assumed. 15-1 6 Cf. 18:23; Exod 22:18(19); D eut 27:21. Bestiality carries the d eath penalty for both the hum an and the beast. In some way guilt from this unnatural act attaches to the beast. T he beast m ust be p u t to death to remove the im purity from the community. 17 A m an who ‫ ל ק ח‬, “takes,” i.e., m arries, a sister either by his father or his m o th er an d consum m ates the m arriage com m its ‫ ח ס ד‬, “a disgrace” (cf. 18:9, 11; D eut 27:22; Ezek 22:11). Usually ‫ ח ס ד‬, a significant term in the OT, expresses “loyal, faithful love.” T he hom onym ‫ ח ס ד‬, possibly from an o th e r root, m eans “disgrace, som ething sham eful.” This second root occurs only twice, here and in Prov 14:34. Since a b ro th er is to guard his sister’s honor, he is held responsible; ‫ עונו נשא‬, “he m ust bear his iniquity” (cf. 7:18; 19:8). T he w ording of this law, that “h e sees h e r nakedness and she sees his nakedness,” m eans that both are passionately involved. Therefore, both are ‫נכ ר ת‬, “cut o f f ’ (cf. 7:21, 27; 19:8; Num 19:13, 20). T he weight o f this punishm ent is strengthened with the w ording “in the sight o f the children o f their p eo p le.” Nevertheless, a greater b u rd en falls on the brother. He is held responsible because he has the greater responsibility of guarding his sister’s honor. 18 Cf. 18:19; 12:2, 7; 15:19, 24; Ezek 22:10. W hen a m an has sexual relations with a wom an d uring menses, the m an and the wom an are held accountable. T he reason given is that he has ‫ ה ע ר ה‬, “laid b are,” ‫ מ ק ר ה‬, “h er fo u n tain ,” and she has ‫ג ל ה‬, “revealed,” ‫ מ קו ר דמיה‬, “the source o f h e r blo o d ” (cf. 12:7). This reason is ro o ted in the mystery o f sex and in the taboo against blood (cf. Elliger, 276). 19 Cf. 18:12-13. Sexual relations with eith er a m o th e r’s sister or a fa th e r’s sister are forbidden. This is an o th er exam ple in the laws on holy living w here the m o th er is m entioned before the father (cf. 19:3; 21:2). T he initial position o f a m o th e r’s sister stresses that a sister o f either p aren t is excluded. Usually incest laws are stricter on the fa th e r’s side; bu t aunts on both sides o f the family are forbidden. 20 If a m an has sexual relations with his u n cle’s wife, they both m ust bear the responsibility for their act (‫) חטא□ ישאו‬. This w ording for responsibility is unusual in th at ‫ ח ט א‬, “sin,” has been substituted for ‫ עון‬, “iniquity.” T heir punishm ent is to die childless,‫ ע רי רי‬, (lit.) “stripped.” This is a heavy penalty, for it m eans the en d o f both o f their families. This penalty is the direct opposite o f the custom of m arriage designed to insure the continuance o f a family line. Snaith (97-98) restricts the m eaning o f this word to “stripped o f posterity,” i.e., no legitim ate heir to m aintain his fa th e r’s rem em brance (cf. 2 Sam 18:18). O f course, only God could guarantee the execution o f this penalty. T he harshness of this penalty is attested in Jerem ia h ’s cursing Jehoiachin with this curse (22:30). 21 Cf. 18:16. Outside of the conditions that required a b ro th er to m arry his deceased b ro th e r’s wife, i.e., levirate m arriage (D eut 25:5-6), one may n o t m arry a b ro th e r’s widow. In this case one b ro th er m ight be seeking to take over his deceased b ro th e r’s estate and nam e inappropriately, folding his dead b ro th e r’s estate into his own and rem oving the rem em brance o f his brother. Such a union is so re p u g n an t th at it is called ‫נ ד ה‬, “odious, foul, im p u re,” a word for “m enstru atio n ” (cf. n. 12:2.c.). NJPS translates it “indecency.” T he penalty is being or

T ran slation

341

becom ing ‫ ע רי רי‬, “childless.” T he em phasis on this penalty is th at they will have no offspring to carry on their line and to attend their m em ory after their death. If there were children already b o rn to either of these parties, this penalty m eans th at they will outlive their children. 22-23 Cf. 18:3-5, 24-30. God points ou t that he is the one who is going to expel the nations that are in the land, because he ‫ קו ץ‬, “loathes,” their defiling practices. ‫ קוץ‬com m unicates deep feelings o f repulsion and contem pt produced by continuous irritation (cf. Gen 27:46; Num 21:5; 22:3). 24-26 God will fulfill his prom ise, and Israel will ‫ירש‬, “possess,” the land. ‫ירש‬ m eans both “to take possession o f ’ and “dispossess,” for one people gains possession o f a land by driving out an o th er people. Israel will gain possession o f a land flowing with milk and honey by driving ou t the o th er nations because God is with her. Canaan, the land o f the prom ised inheritance, was first described as a land flowing with milk and honey when God called Moses to lead Israel out o f Egypt (Exod 3:8,17; cf. D eut 6 :3 ).‫ ח ל ב‬, “m ilk,” refers to goat’s milk and ‫דב ש‬, “honey,” to syrup from the date. In the prom ised land Israel is to live differently than the people whom she is going to drive out, because God has set h er apart (‫ ) ה ב די ל‬to follow his decrees and laws. To prom ote Israel’s separation from h er neighbors, God has given h er specific dietary laws (chap. 11). God requires his people to distinguish between clean and unclean anim als in o rd er that they do n o t make themselves ‫“ שקץ‬detestable” (cf. 11:9-12; 41-44), by eating any of these animals th at are unclean. 27 Cf. v 6; 19:31. This law against necrom ancy specifically applies to either a m an or a woman who practices this skill. T he death penalty is prescribed for a necrom ancer and a spiritist; it is to be executed by stoning (cf. v 2). Explanation

See Explanation for 18:1-30.

E.

Special Law s fo r the Priests

(21:1-24)

Bibliography

Bailey, J. W. ‘T he Usage in the Post Restoration Period of Terms Descriptive of the Priest and High Priest.”/¿¡/. 70 (1951) 217-25. Zipor, M. “Restrictions on Marriage for Priests (Lev 21,7.13-14).” B ib 68 (1987) 259-67. Translation 1Yahweh said to Moses: “Say to the priests, the sons of Aaron, and say to them: No one may make himself unclean for a death aamong his relativesb 2except for his a closest relatives: his mother, his father, b his son,c his daughter, his brother. d 3But he may make himself unclean fo r a his marriageableb sister, who is near to him and who does not have

342

L e v it ic u s

21:1-24

a husband.c 4He may not make himself unclean for those related by marriageafor he would defile himself b 5 “They shall not make balda patches on their headsb or shave off the corner of their beards or make gashesc in their bodies.d 6They are to be holy to their God; they shall not profane the name of their God, because they present the giftsa ofYahweh, thefoodh of their God; they are to be holy.c 7 “They shall not marry a harlot, a hierodule a and they shall not marry b a divorcedc woman, because each priestd is holy to his God.e8You are to make sure he is holya because he presents the foodh of your Gods Youd are to regard him as holy, because I Yahweh, who sanctify you,e am holy. 9 “I f a priest’s a daughter defilesh herself by harlotry, she defiles herfather. c She is to be burned with fire. 10 “The priest, who is pre-eminent among his brothersa on whose head the anointing oil has been poured,b and who has been ordained to wearc the priestly garments,d is not to let his hair be unkempt nor to tear his clothes. 11He shall not enter any place of the dead.ah He shall not make himself unclean for his father or his mother. b 12He shall not leave the sanctuary in order that he not profane the sanctuary of his God, because the consecrationa of the anointing oil of his God is on him. Ia m Yahweh. 18“H ea is to marry a young virgin.hc 14He shall not marry a widow, a divorcee, a hierodulea or a harlot,hc but he is only to marry a virgin from his own people d 15He is not to profane his off spring among his relatives,a becauseb Ia m Yahweh who sanctifies him .” 16Yahweh spoke to Moses: 17 “Speak to Aaron:a No one from your seed, in any generation,h who has a blemish may come near to presentc thefood of his God.18Noa one who has a blemishh may come near: one who is blind, lame, disfigured,c or deformed d 19one who has an impaired leg or impaired h a n d a 20or who is a hunchbacka has a withered member, b a discoloration of the eye,c a festering rash,d lichen,e or damagedf testicles. 21None of the offspring of Aaron, the priest, who has a blemisha may come near topresenth the gifts for Yahweh.cHe who has a blemish shall not come near to present the food of his God.d 22He may eat thefood of his Goda both that which is most holy and that which is holy.h 23But he shall not enter the curtain or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, and he may not defile my sanctuarya because I am Yahweh who sanctifies them.”b 24Thus Moses spoke to Aaron, to his sons, and to all the Israelites. Notes l.a. Cf. 19:28.b. 1. b. In place of MT ‫עמיו‬, “his relatives,” Sam, Syr, Tg, and Tg. Ps.-J. read a sg noun ‫עמו‬, “his people.”LXX reads a pi pronoun “their.” 2. a. LXX has a pi pronoun. 2.b. Sam, LXX, and Syr invert MT to read ‫לאביו ולאמו‬, “for his father and his mother.”Cf. n. 19:3.a. 2.c. Sam, LXXmss, and Tgmss omit the w aw , “and.” 2. d. Sam and LXXmss omit the waw, “and.” 3. a. LXX reads έ π ί τ ο ύ τ ο ις , “for these,” in place of MT ‫לה‬, “for her.” Unless the antecedent of “her” is a result of attraction to the fern in the first part of this verse, it is inexplicable and thus an error of transmission (Sun, “Investigation,” 267). 3.b. G. Wenham (“B 'tulah ‘a girl of marriageable age,’” VT22 [1972] 326-48) argues that ‫בתולה‬ means “a young lady of marriageable age.”It is then not a technical term for “a virgin”; otherwise the clause “who does not have a husband”would not be needed. Through the centuries this term took on this technical meaning, but this did not clearly take place until the Christian era in Wenham,s judgment.

Notes

343

3. c. This is a casus pendens, which is picked up by ‫לה‬, “for her,” before the verb. 4. a. MT ‫ בעל בעמיו‬, “a husband among his people,” has troubled interpreters. Dillmann (619) emends ‫ בעל‬to ‫באבל‬, “in mourning.” Bertholet (74) and Elliger (279) read ‫לבעלת־בעל‬, “for one married” (cf. Deut 22:22). The expression is taken to mean those related to him through marriage. For different readings of MT ‫עמיו‬, “his relatives,” see n. l.a. 4. b. MT ‫החלו‬, “defile oneself, be profaned,” is a niph inf constr (GKC §67t). 5. a. Sam supports the qere and adds a w a w at the beginning,‫ולא יקרהו‬, “and they shall not shave.” The ketib ‫ לא י קרחה‬, “one shall not shave,” is a scribal error arising from the following cognate acc ‫קרחה‬, “bald spot.” LXX puts this verb in the second person pi. 5.b. LXX adds e m νεκρω, “for the dead”; cf. Deut 14:1. 5.c. For MT ‫שרטת‬, “gash,” Sam has the spelling ‫שרטה‬. 5. d. V 5 is arranged chiastically. V 5a