P.W. Coxon, "A note on 'Bathsheba' in 2 Samuel 12, 1-6", Biblica 62 (1981), 247-250. - C. supports the LXX reading of shivatayim in 2 Sam. 12:6 for arbatayim on the basis of an elaborate word play throughout 2 Sam. 11 and 12 and the final irony of Nathan's judgment, shivatayim, as a word play on the name of David's mistress, batsheva (cf. bt in v.3). (K.W.W.)

Gershom Frankfurter and Rivka Ulmer, "Über Homosexualität im jüdischen Gesetz", Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 43/1 (1991), 49-68.

H. McKeating, "A Response to Dr Phillips", JSOT 20 (1981), 25-6. - McKeating offers a brief reply to the article by Phillips in JSOT 20 (1981), 3-25 (below). (J.D.)

A. Phillips, "Another look at Adultery", JSOT 20 (1981), 3-25. - "In conclusion, then, this 'another look at adultery' in the Old Testament confirms the assertion of Greenberg, Paul and myself that the law covering adultery in Israel was unique in the ancient Near East, adultery being treated as a crime and not as a civil offence. Consequently it demanded community - not private - action leading to the execution of the adulterer, and, after the Deuteronomic reform, of the adulteress too. The husband could neither pardon the criminal(s), take any private act of revenge, nor settle for damages, since adultery was a crime and not a civil offence for which damages would properly be paid. The only thing which concerned him, as it did the community at large, was that the criminal(s) should be publicly tried, convicted and executed, though in the post-exilic period excommunication from the cult community replaced exaction of the death penalty. In my view this situation could only have arisen because ancient Israel came into being through accepting a distinctive law which, regardless of any covenant theology, made her a peculiar people among the other ancient Near Eastern peoples. This could only have been the Decalogue." (J.D.)

A. Phillips, "A Response to Dr McKeating", JSOT 22 (1982), 142-3. - Phillips offers a brief reply to the criticisms levelled at his earlier article by H. McKeating in JSOT 20 (1981), 25-6. (J.D.)

G.J. Wenham, "Why Does Sexual Intercourse Defile?", ZAW 95 (1983), 432-34. - The distinction of life and death is fundamental to Israel's concept of holiness. God who is perfect life is the ultimately holy. All the conditions described in Lev. 12 & 15 are polluting because they incur loss of "life liquids", for example blood (17:11,14), which is why a woman in menstruation is unclean. In the same way male semen must be seen as a "life-liquid" and so its loss, whether long-term (15:1-15) or temporarily (15:16-18) is polluting. (R.A.M.)



   Search this site            powered by FreeFind

The Jewish Law Association website is
hosted by the Centre for Jewish Studies
at the University of Manchester

About | Officers | Constitution | Membership | Conferences
Publications | Abstracts | Resources | Courses | Links

View the framed or non-framed version of this site