¹ For various attempts to delineate such sources, see Reventlow, Henning Graf, Das Heiligkeitsgesetz. formgeschichtlich untersucht (WMANT 6; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961) 65–78Google Scholar; Kilian, Rudolph, Literarkhtische und formgeschichtliche Untersuchung des Heiligkeitsgesetzes (BBB 19; Bonn: Hanstein, 1963) 57–65Google Scholar; Feucht, Christian, Untersuchungen zum Heiligkeitsgesetz (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1964) 37–42Google Scholar; Cholewinski, Alfred, Heiligkeitsgesetz und Deuteronomium: Eine vergleichende Studie (AnBib 64; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976) 44–54.Google Scholar

² For the thesis that the laws of the Mishpatim (Exod 21:1–23:19) are the product of the Deuteronomist, see my The Origins of Biblical Law: The Decalogues and the Book of the Covenant (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

³ For example, God's judgment on Onan's failure to meet his levirate obligation to his dead brother in Genesis 38 has its legal equivalent in the rule about the levirate in Deut 25:5–10. See Carmichael, Calum M., Law and Narrative in the Bible: The Evidence of the Deuteronomic Laws and the Decalogue (Ithaca: Cornall University Press, 1985) 295–97.Google Scholar

⁴ God's opposition to Sarah's going from her husband Abraham to another man and back to Abraham in Genesis 20 becomes a rule against the restoration of a marriage when the legal machinery of divorce has been used for the first husband's gain. See Carmichael, Calum M. and Daube, David, The Return of the Divorcee (Inaugural Jewish Law Fellowship Lecture, Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies, 1993) 15–28.Google Scholar

⁵ See Melul, Meir, The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (AOAT 227; Kevelaer: Butzen & Bercker and Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1990) 105–7 n. 13.Google Scholar

⁶ Levinson, Bernard, “Calum M. Carmichael's Approach to the Laws of Deuteronomy,” HTR 83 (1990) 227–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ The thesis that I develop has already received serious and positive discussion at the turn of the century as reported in Samuel Rolles Driver's masterful commentary (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy [3d ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902] 213Google Scholar): “Unless, indeed, the other alternative be adopted, and the author of Dt. 17:14–20 [law of the king] be supposed to have been influenced, as he wrote, by his recollections of the narrative of Sam. (so Budde, Richter und Samuel, p. 183 f.; Cornill, Einl. par. 17.4). As the nucleus of 1 S. 8; 10:17–27a 12 appears to be pre-Deuteronomic (L.O.T. I.c.), the latter alternative is not the least probable one.”

⁸ Noth, Martin, The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup 15; Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press, 1981).Google Scholar

⁹ Noth claims that “the document of practical significance [for the deuteronomistic history] was the deuteronomic law” (Deuteronomistic History, 92), yet in his attempts to understand the history he cites only seven deuteronomic laws in his index of sources.

¹⁰ Noth, Deuteronomistic History, 140.

¹¹ On the major points of contact between the recording of Amaziah's history and the history of Jacob/Israel at the time of the Shechem incident, see Carmichael, Law and Narrative in the Bible, 270–76.

¹² Levinson, “Carmichael's Approach,” 239.

¹³ When Johnstone, William (“The Decalogue and the Redaction of the Sinai Pericope in Exodus,” ZAW 100 [1988] 373)Google Scholar, in discussing biblical legal material, states that it is the nature of law codes to change over time, he openly sets forth a common assumption. Loewenstamm, Samuel E. (“Exodus xxi 22–25,” VT 27 [1977] 355Google Scholar) points out, however, that we do not have the slightest evidence for the mechanisms or processes by which these supposed additions to the law codes were made. The biggest problem is the endless speculation about what historical event or movement brought about a supposed change in a law. Unfortunately, the evidence for such historical reconstruction does not exist. However much one may desire to locate a history of ancient Israel, the gulf between the biblical sources and the reality of the past is too great to be bridged.

¹⁴ Levinson, “Carmichael's Approach,” 255.

¹⁵ Ibid., 244. Levinson refers to “possibly the most spectacular assertion,” namely, what I say about the shoe symbolism in the levirate law in Deut 25:5–10, and says that in the discussion of this passage I fail to explore the significance of the shoe symbolism in Ruth (p. 248). In the articles and book to which I refer in the notes, however, I lay out in considerable detail the important differences between the withdrawal of a man's shoe by the woman in the law and the kinsman's removal of his own shoe in Ruth.

¹⁶ See Daube, David, Collected Works of David Daube, vol. 1: Talmudic Law (ed. Carmichael, Calum M.; Berkeley: Robbins Collection, 1992) 335–55.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Noordtzij, Arie (Leviticus [trans. Togtman, Raymond; BSC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982] 193Google Scholar) says that the mother is cited first because in a polygamous society children have a more intimate attachment to their mother than to their father.

¹⁸ Philo Spec leg 2.225; compare idem Det. pot. ins. 54; idem Vit. Mos. 2.209.

¹⁹ Compare how Sennacherib was likened to a god in heaven to whom the sun, moon, and stars are subservient (Ahikar 6:16 in Syriac and Armenian versions; Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament [2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1913] 2. 759–60Google Scholar); also, Nabonidus was greeted by the moon, a star, and Jupiter (Pritchard, James Bennett, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Text Relating to the Old Testament [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950] 310Google Scholar). Further, Pericles was compared to Zeus by Plutarch (Pericles 8.3). See Redford, Donald B., A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (SVTP; Leiden: Brill, 1970) 204.Google Scholar

²⁰ The expression םימליא םילילא (“dumb idols”) occurs in Hab 2:18.

²¹ von Rad, Gerhard (Genesis: A Commentary [trans. Marks, John H.; rev. ed.; London: SCM, 1972] 351–52Google Scholar) is at pains to stress that Joseph's dreams in no way signify any religious dimension. They are, he implies, just the vivid imaginings of a young boy. One wonders why he feels the need to stress that there are no religious or mythological overtones. The issue that von Rad attempts to deny is precisely the one that lies behind the priestly lawgiver's concern. I am not claiming that the priestly lawgiver read the dreams as idolatrous in character, but that in light of his knowledge of Israel's religious history, the dreams raise the issue of idolatry.

²² Keil, Carl Friedrich and Delitzsch, F. speak of sacrifices as “the leading form of divine worship” (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament [2 vols.; trans. Martin, James; [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869] 2. 419).Google Scholar

²³ See Milgrom's, Jacob reference to Lev 7:11–21 in Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991) 413.Google Scholar

²⁴ Levine, Baruch A., Leviticus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989) 14–15Google Scholar; Hartley, John E., Leviticus (Dallas: Word, 1992) 37–39.Google Scholar

²⁵ The harvesting of sheaves in the dream explains why an injunction about the harvest precedes the injunction about the gleaning of grapes in this rule (Lev 19:9–10).

²⁶ Joseph was sold for twenty shekels of silver. In Lev 27:5 this is the value placed on a minor above five years old in order to buy him back after he has been vowed to the sanctuary. Such dedication of a person to the sanctuary is the religious equivalent of the secular institution of slavery.

²⁷ This action will play a prominent role in subsequent laws in Leviticus 19.

²⁸ The term used for the grain that Joseph put in storage is ןודקיפ, “deposit” (Gen 41:36). Its only other occurrence is in Lev 6:2 (cheating in regard to a neighbor's deposit).

²⁹ See Carmichael, Law and Narrative in the Bible, 278–88. Gerhard von Rad states (Genesis, 352), without any reason given, “One ought not to see in it [the vision of the sheaves] a reference to Joseph's later policy of storage.” Daphne Du Maurier's Rebecca provides an example of a later literary work which opens with a dream that points to the story's ending.

³⁰ On theft as the leitmotif of the story of Jacob's relationship with Laban, see Spanier, Ktziah, “Rachel's Theft of the Teraphim: Her Struggle for Family Primacy,” VT 42 (1992) 404–12.Google Scholar

³¹ Deception by exploiting problems of sight is a factor in Jacob's fraud against his father, Laban's fraud against Jacob on his wedding night, and of Rachel's concealment of Laban's household gods. It is possible that the narrator intends Rachel's action as a mirroring retribution for her father's denial of her to Jacob on the night of the wedding. If household gods protect a family home, by his substituting Leah for Rachel, Laban was denying Rachel the protection of a new home.

³² See Daube, David, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947) 190–200Google Scholar; and the very similar analysis by Alter, Robert, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981) 42–46.Google Scholar

³³ See Driver, Samuel Rolles, The Book of Exodus in the Revised Version (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911) 217.Google Scholar

³⁴ An incident that prompted the rules against treating a parent with contempt (הללק) in Exod 21:17 (and Lev 20:9). See Carmichael, Origins of Biblical Law, 112–13. Robert Alter (Art of Biblical Narrative, 181) identifies the link between the two episodes as the deceptive use of garments.

³⁵ Both the Joseph tradition (relevant to the rule about unrighteousness in judgment) and the tradition about Isaac's blessing of Esau or Jacob (relevant to the preceding rules about swearing falsely and misleading the blind) contain a report about the doings of others. The Genesis narrator may have intended to link the two reports. Just as Jacob had offended by wrongly acting on his mother's report about a father's love for a son (Esau), so Jacob in turn ran into trouble with his sons because he failed to act on Joseph's report about them, his failure also being motivated by love for his son (Joseph).

³⁶ It is not accurate to translate לר as “poor” and לןרנ as “rich,” as Baruch A. Levine claims that the context requires (Leviticus, 129). לר is usually paired with רישע, “rich” (Exod 30:15; Prov 10:15; 22:16; 28:11). לר does have the meaning “poor,” but in light of the narrative background “weak, lowly” is more accurate.

³⁷ See Carmichael, Origins of Biblical Law, 187–89.

³⁸ Westermann, Claus claims (Genesis: A Commentary [3 vols.; trans. Scullion, John J.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986] 3. 36Google Scholar) that from one angle, “Joseph's action in the context of vv. 1–2 together with vv. 3ff. is to be understood as an act of tale-bearing by which he wanted to make himself important.”

³⁹ Tg. Onq. Lev 19:16 reads the sentence in the sense of conspiring against someone: “Do not rise up against the life of your comrade.”

⁴⁰ In the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (probably originally from the second century BCE), Joseph's brother Gad explicitly relates the rule that is found in Lev 19:17 to the relationship between Joseph and his brothers (7”. Gad 6.1–5). For an important discussion, see Kugel, James L., “On Hidden Hatred and Open Reproach: Early Exegesis of Leviticus 19:17,” HTR 80 (1987) 49–61Google Scholar. At the very least, it is interesting that this early wisdom composition links the law to the Joseph narrative. Whether or not the author of Testament of Gad was familiar with the process of legal and ethical formulation that I am describing, and consequently represents a continuation of it, is a question that remains open.

⁴¹ Baruch A. Levine (Leviticus, 130), noting the use of the term רטנ, “to keep, guard, retain,” paraphrases, “One ought not to keep alive the memory of another's offence against him.” See the Babylonian Counsels of Wisdom (in Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 426): “Unto your opponent do no evil; Your evildoer recompence with good; Unto your enemy let justice [be done].”

⁴² See Takamitsu Muraoka's decisive arguments in favor of the translation of ךומכ ךעד as “[thy neighbor] who is like thyself,” that is, “[thy neighbor] who is like thyself, an Israelite” (“A Syntactic Problem in Lev. xix. 18b,” JSS 23 [1978] 291–97).

⁴³ There is increasing recognition of the importance of this fact. See, for example, Chirichigno, Gregory C., “The Narrative Structure of Exod 19–24,” Bib 68 (1987) 457–79.Google Scholar