1 His views on this are nicely summarized in E. Otto, “The Study of Law and Ethics in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament,” in M. Saebo, ed., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, Part III/2 From Modernism to Post-Modernism (The Twentieth Century) (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 594–621 (at 600–602).

2 E. Otto, Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments (ThW 3/2; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994), 25–26.

3 This is the assumption of Knight, Law (see n. 3), 196–197, though he does not deal with the many complexities of the law. See also the literature cited in Jackson, Wisdom-Laws (see n. 36), 230 n. 114.

4 Ibid., 231–233.

5 See Otto, Theologische Ethik, 78–81; and idem, Deuteronomium 12, 1–23, 15, vol. 1 of Deuteronomium 12–34 (HTKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2016), 1545–1549.

6 Otto (ibid.) argues that the talionic formula in Deuteronomy 19 has the same basic function as it does in CC. Here, though, it underscores the need for talion when false accusation occurs in a capital case.

7 See, e.g., Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27 (see n. 74), 2129, who identifies it as a chiasm within a larger chiasm. See also S. Chavel, Oracular Law and Priestly Historiography in the Torah (FAT II/71; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 68, who sees the arrangement of the chiasm slightly differently.