Honoring the name : a social-rhetorical approach to the Holiness Legislation (Lev 17-26)

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to understand how the Holiness Legislation in Leviticus attempts to shape the response of the People of God to Yhwh’s holy presence amongst them using the rhetoric of honor. While commentators have alluded to the concept of honor in the Holiness Legislation (Lev 17-26), none have brought any social science methodologies to bear on it. Because the social setting of the text is different than our own, social-science methodologies may be employed to limit anachronistic and ethnocentric assumptions during cross-cultural readings and provide deeper insight into the cultural situation and rhetorical strategies at work. The goal of this study is to use these cultural scripts heuristically to formulate hypotheses about how texts are shaped by concepts of honor and shame. These hypotheses are used to develop a “thick reading” that interprets texts relative to a network of cultural presuppositions. This thesis argues that not only is the concept of honor present in pieces of the Holiness Legislation, it is integral to understand how the Holiness Legislation coheres as a whole I argue this by first examining how honor brings coherence to the Nadab and Abihu narrative (Lev 10) and Blaspheming Son pericope (Lev 24), which are mutually interpretative. In particular, I argue that the Blaspheming Son “made light of” (not cursed) Yhwh’s name. The seriousness of making light of Yhwh’s name is highlighted in the concentric oracle that follows, centered on the talion, that forms a status hierarchy of animals, humans, and Yhwh’s name, with Yhwh’s name having the highest status. Next, I argue that this narrative pericope, stands as an archetypical offense against the Divine Name Formula [I am Yhwh (your God)] (DNF), which structures the Holiness Legislation. First, I demonstrate how the DNF forms the structural backbone of the Holiness Legislation. Then, I argue that Yhwh’s name signifies not only his authority but his reputation, which can be affected by Israel’s public response to Yhwh’s instruction and boundaries of holiness. I conclude that the Blaspheming Son pericope is not misplaced (as is often thought), but stands as an archetypical offense to Yhwh’s Name that structures the Holiness Legislation, in a way that parallels how Nadab and Abihu’s offense is an archetypical offense in the first half of Leviticus. Finally, while Israel’s obedience publicly reflects on Yhwh’s honor, I also argue that the blessings and curses are a talionic response from Yhwh that affects Israel’s honor. Thus, blessings and curses persuade through a talionic honor-for-honor, shame-for-shame response, in ways paralleled to Deuteronomy 28 and the ANE, in general. Thus, a social-science model of honor brings coherence to the brief narrative pericope, the purpose of the DNF, the relationship between the two, and the concluding blessings and curses. This makes honor critical to understanding the persuasive strategy and coherence of the Holiness Legislation as a whole.