Abstract
In a previous issue of the review (ETR 75, 2000, p. 415-420), J. Joosten asserted, by making use of categories of greco-latin rhetoric, that the father-daughter incest, though not explicitely mentioned, was implied by the writer of Lv 18. The application of rules of Semitic rhetoric and the consequent structural lay-out of the chapter add to these results and also confirm the skill of the writer : by placing the prohibition of father-daughter incest in the very middle of his speech, he combines opposing oratory requirements and succeeds the feat of concealing this delicate issue without undermining its importance.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
