Rethinking Leviticus and rereading purity and danger
These are good times for those who are fascinated by the book of Leviticus. While denigrations of the Israelite purity system and priestly traditions are still to be found, there seems to be an increasing willingness to give Leviticus the benefit of some doubt, considering it to be something other t...
| Subtitles: | Review Essay |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Contributors: | ; |
| Format: | Electronic Review |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
University of Pennsylvania Press
[2003]
|
| In: |
AJS review
Year: 2003, Volume: 27, Issue: 1, Pages: 89-101 |
| Review of: | Leviticus as literature (Oxford [u.a.] : Oxford Univ. Press, 1999) (Klawans, Jonathan)
Leviticus as literature (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1999) (Klawans, Jonathan) Ritual and morality (Cambridge [u.a.] : Cambridge University Press, 1999) (Klawans, Jonathan) Ritual and morality (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1999) (Klawans, Jonathan) |
| Further subjects: | B
Book review
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | These are good times for those who are fascinated by the book of Leviticus. While denigrations of the Israelite purity system and priestly traditions are still to be found, there seems to be an increasing willingness to give Leviticus the benefit of some doubt, considering it to be something other than a dry, rigid, ritualistic, and hierarchical code. These two books argue forcefully, convincingly—and quite differently—against many previous misunderstandings of Leviticus. What is more, we can perhaps even begin to speak of an emerging consensus on one important issue that both books deal with: the nature of ritual impurity. More and more scholars seem to be saying what these two are: that ritual impurity is a complex ritual structure, not a blunt instrument of social control. But if the evaluation of Leviticus in general (and ritual impurity in particular) is positive in both of these books, they share little else. It is difficult to conceive of two scholarly books with as many overlapping concerns, published in the same year and country, which differ so much with regard to scope, structure, and method. They differ too, in the end, with regard to both quality and importance. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1475-4541 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Association for Jewish Studies, AJS review
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0364009403000047 |