Purging the Evil from Israel: The Function of the Deuteronomic Formula in Judg 20:13

This article argues for the importance of the purging formula in Judg 20:13. In the Deuteronomic Code, this formula provides the motivation for capital punishment in two areas relevant to the Judges narrative: first, apostasy and incitement to it, and, second, the perversion of Deuteronomic legal procedures. This study argues that both motifs are present in and important to Judges’ rendering of the Sodom-like outrage in Gibeah. The first is obvious. With regard to the second, the article argues that the Israelites err in their investigation of the case, and therefore their decisions and subsequent action lead to more violence and confusion. It is further argued that the triple oracular inquiry of YHWH in Judg 20:18–28 is presented as an inadequate substitute for proper forensic adjudication; it therefore does not lead to the establishment of order and justice.

Reading the “power of clothes” in the Deuteronomic Code

This article explores the ancient Israelite law, namely the Deuteronomic Code (Deut. 12–26), in terms of how men and women were treated differently when it came to cultural adornment practices. In other words, the Deuteronomic Code was used culturally to hold women back and treated them differently in ancient Israel. It enforced the degradation of women. The legal terminology used when dealing with women and their cultural adornment practices is out of place when it comes to gender. The following areas are addressed in this work: How were anti-women practices enmeshed in the Israelite legal system (Deuteronomic Code)? Were these law codes resistant or open to change in the course of her history? In answering these questions, a feminist approach found that Israel did indeed subordinate and forcefully disenfranchise women.

Women Treated as Property: The Influence of the Ancient Near East on the Covenant Code

Gender discrimination is not a new phenomenon. It has been prevalent in many civilisations through the ages, including those in the ancient Near East. Prejudice against women thus found its way into legal codes, such as the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi, which introduced the idea of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” according to which the killer of a woman was only obliged to pay half a gold mina as punishment to her father or husband, while the punishment for the murder of a nobleman was death. Gender discrimination was also displayed in the moral codes of the Hebrew Bible, including the Deuteronomic Code, the Covenant Code, and the Holiness Code. This article will examine how the Covenant Code relates to gender discrimination. The code, which is presented in Exodus 20–23, is an ancient legislative framework of impressive breadth. Scholars agree that the Covenant Code is an excellent barometer to reveal how women were treated in ancient Israel. While the aim of the article is not to make an in-depth exegetical study of the Covenant Code, it will examine the influence that other cultures in the ancient Near East had on Israel. Appreciating the power that pagan cultures exerted over Israel does not however excuse the negative treatment of women reflected in the Covenant Code. Nevertheless, this investigation will demonstrate how significant this influence was in allowing the negative treatment of women in Israel to persist, especially against the backdrop of Yahweh’s covenant, which stipulated that women were to be treated with dignity and respect.

Deuteronomy

Biblical scholars typically consider genre as part of their analysis of a biblical text. The literary genre of Deuteronomy is most commonly compared to either a treaty covenant or to a law code. Deuteronomy contains clear parallels to the treaty structure preserved in Hittite and neo-Assyrian traditions. At the same time, the central place of the Deuteronomic Code (12:1–26:19) suggests that Deuteronomy is a law code. Deuteronomy shares characteristics in common with other genres, such as exhortation, and traditions, such as wisdom. The defining characteristic of Deuteronomy is appropriation and reinterpretation of earlier compositions and forms.

Mosetora und Jahwetora. Das Verhältnis von Deuteronomium 12‐26 zu Exodus, Levitikus und Numeri

SUMMARYKilchör reviews the thesis that in diachronic respect, the Torah of Moses (the Deuteronomic Code in Deuteronomy 12‐26) precedes the Torah of Yahweh (Exodus ‐ Numbers). Nowadays, this assumption dominates Old Testament scholarship. Through a detailed exegetical analysis Kilchör corroborates that an arrangement in which the Deuteronomic Code chronologically follows Exodus to Numbers, corresponding to the canonical sequence of the books, is more plausible.RÉSUMÉKilchör considère la thèse selon laquelle la Torah de Moïse (la loi deutéronomique de Dt 12-26) aurait précédé la Torah yahviste (Exode et Nombres). Cette théorie domine actuellement les études académiques de l’Ancien Testament. Sur la base d’une étude exégétique détaillée, il montre qu’il est bien plus probable que la loi deutéronomique soit postérieure à la rédaction des livres de l’Exode et des Nombres, en accord avec la séquence canonique des livres.ZUSAMMENFASSUNGKilchör überprüft die Annahme, dass in diachroner Hinsicht die Mosetora (das deuteronomische Gesetz in Deuteronomium 12‐26) der Jahwetora (Exodus‐ Numeri) vorausgeht. Diese Annahme dominiert heutzutage in der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft. Durch eine detaillierte exegetische Untersuchung weist Kilchör nach, dass eine Abfolge, die das deuteronomische Gesetz zeitlich auf Exodus bis Numeri folgen lässt und damit der kanonischen Abfolge der Bücher entspricht, wahrscheinlicher ist.

Near Eastern Practice of Law in Deuteronomy

This chapter examines the implications of documentary evidence on Near Eastern legal practice for understanding legal material in the biblical book of Deuteronomy. The chapter extends to Deuteronomy B. Wells’s approach to biblical law by observing similar legal issues, similar legal reasoning, and similar legal remedies shared by the Deuteronomic Code and cuneiform records of ancient Near Eastern legal practice. These data suggest that Deuteronomy was produced by scribes who were directly familiar with legal practice or who utilized textual traditions in turn directly rooted in legal practice. Deuteronomy presents legal practice in a systematic way, probing its underlying principles. At the same time, the data examined here also suggest that the Deuteronomic Code was not merely descriptive of legal practice. For example, in the law about fugitives, the Deuteronomic Code presents a vision of Israel’s international status that did not precisely match historical reality. As a literary work, Deuteronomy embodied a political and religious vision of Israel, including its legal system.

Covenant

No ancient Near Eastern parallels exist for the presentation of civil and criminal law as clauses attaching to a covenant, established between a God and a people or nation. In the Hebrew Bible, this conception is widespread. In particular, the Covenant Code (Exod. 21–23), the Holiness Code (Lev. 17–25), and the Deuteronomic Code (Deut. 12–26) all—though in different ways—pretend to draw their force from a covenant between YHWH and Israel. The present chapter explores the notion of covenant and the various elaborations of covenant theology. It is suggested that the combination of law and covenant was first established in Exodus 19–24, and that the other law codes adopted the idea, together with an important number of laws (more in the case of Deuteronomy than in the Holiness Code), from there.

Mimicking Empire: Divine Administration in Isaiah

The gōlāh-oriented vision of Ezra was opposed in the scroll of Isaiah, which in Isaiah 49–55 called for a reconciliation of Returnees and Remainees within Yhwh’s own empire. Identifying King Cyrus as a messiah in Isa 45:1 might well have sacrificed messianic hopes, but this is only an apparent concession to the ruling powers. Many of Isaiah’s texts have in fact mimicked the imperial administration in order to claim jurisdiction for Yhwh’s torah not only within the limited state imagined in the Deuteronomic Code but also across the many nations of the empire. Isaiah’s vision of peaceable rule interacts with some distinctive features of Iranian royal ideology, including the symbolism of royal parklands. Isaiah’s Eden theology mimics the Persian paradises, while envisaging the rule of God in a this-worldly eschatology.