Holiness, Purity, the Body, and Society: the Evidence for Theological Conflict in Leviticus

Abstract

Israel Knohl's recently advanced hypothesis that the Holiness Code answers and mildly corrects the Priestly Work receives qualified support in a study of the use of words related to the roots ? and ? in Leviticus 1-16 and 17-26. But contrary to Knohl's view that the Holiness Codes still reflects priestly interests, this study shows that the different uses of the roots in the two parts of Leviticus suggest a democratization and laicization of holiness in Leviticus 17-26 and may imply a pol emic on the part of the Holiness Code's authors against the authors of Leviticus 1-16.

What cultural psychologies need: Generalizing theories!

“…Everything made of cloth or of skin on which the semen falls will be washed with water, and be impure until the evening. (Leviticus 15.16–18)Such cleanliness instructions were meant for mild states of impurity—linked with getting “dirty” by real liquids, yet with those of symbolic importance—where washing and waiting for a period of time were considered to suffice (Kugler, 1997). These were no major defilements which would require elaborate purification rituals for restoring the desired purity.…”

Endangered or Dangerous? YHWH’s Presence and Impurity in Levitical Perspective

“… 65. Thus, while he has been criticised in other respects (see Milgrom (2000, 1713)), Kugler (1997, 14–15) is nevertheless correct in articulating the dynamic between impurity and holiness in Leviticus: ‘in spite of the popular belief that uncleanness in P is thought to endanger the holy, contact between the sanctified and impurity never actually damages the holy in Leviticus 1–16. In fact, the opposite seems to be true.…”