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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar 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.