Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
T.M. LEMOS
Huron University College at Western University, 1349 Western Road, London, Ontario
N6G1H3, Canada
Abstract
article contends that biblical scholarship on impurity has often been concerned with
attempting to hnd one symbolic system underlying Israelite purity constructions. This
tendency is clear 111 the work 01' Maiy Douglas and Jacob Milgrom, but even in more
scholarship hie tendency to treat the diverse body of teHs discussing impurity as a
system has continued. Even recent attempts to place all of lliese texts into Iwo or more
categories 01' impurity have had to force biblical texts to ht categories ttiat supposedly
encompass all ofthe HebrewBible. This article presents various important inconsistencies
1the purity constructions of different biblical texts in order to demonsirate tliat these
constructions are not ill fact systematic. There is no system oflsraelite impurity. Moreover, 111 positing such a system, scholars have displayed assumptions and utilized metliods
* Earlier versions of tiiis study were presented at the Society of Biblical Literature
Amiual Meeting 011 24 November 2008 in Boston, MA and at Rhodes 011ege, Memphis.
TN 0 1 1 12 February 2009.1 ttiank Baruch Schwartz and the others present on both those
occasions for tiieir comments and suggestions, as well as Thomas Kazen, Saul Olyan.
Brent Nongbri, Chaya Halberstam, Matthew Neujahr, and Aiidrea Stevenson Allen, all of
whom read and commented 011 the 111
its various stages of dwelopn!ent.
266
that are at odds with those of contemporary ritual studies. This article argues instead for an
embodied approach to studying Israelite purity constrictions tliat moves beyond Cartesian
dichotomies and seeks to contextualize the evidence from different biblical texts, treating
differences between texts not as obstacles but as analytical opportunities.
Keywords: impurity, ritual studies, embodiment, priestly writers, Leviticus, Ezekiel,
Ezra-Nehemiah.
1. Introduction
In her sem inalw ork '
and Danger, Mary Douglas wrote, 'W here
there IS dirt there is system '.1 That is, where one finds eonstruettons 01'
purity and
' . one finds a symbolic system that gives rise to sueh
constaterions. Purity and Danger, 1think most w ould agree, is fire single
most important book ever written on the study o f purity, and it has
u ^ rp risin g l} / had a great influence upon the work ol'biblieal scholars.
Though many have found fault with various details o f Douglas's schema,
often scholars have followed her irr attempting to uncover the rationale,
the single unifying system behind Israel's purify laws. At least a dozen o f
tire books o f the Hebrew Bible refer to eustoms regulations surrounding purity, texts as disparate in style and provenance as Leviticus
and Lamentations, Lzel<iel and 1 Samuel, Genesis and Ezra-Nehemiah.
Yet, tirse who have written on Israelite purity ideas have in the majority
o f cases tried to subsume all of the referenees to purity under one
overarching rubric. In this article, I seek to problematize this venture:
first, by discussing the most important attempts to schematize Israel's
purity constructions; second, by detailing various noteworthy differences
and inconsistencies among the many biblical texts that speak o f
defilement and assessing the implications o f these dil'I'crcuccs: and, last,
by proposing ^tcrirativc approaches for examining these texts. My
overarching objective in this article is to demonstrate that tlrcrc is no one
rubric that can make sense o f all o fth e sources o f Impurity attested in
Israelite texts and that fee attempt to uncover one structure, symbolic or
otherwise, underlying all o f these sources is at best counterproductive and
at worst a dlstraefiou I'l'oni the task o f analyzing how different biblical
texts construct Impurity I! sometimes very divergent ways. Even attempts
to complicate the picture by proposing two or three overarching systems
1.
Maty Duuglas, Purity andDanger: An Analysis ofthe Concepts o f Pollution and
Taboo (Eondun: Routledge, 1966), p. 36.
267
at work have often distorted the evidence and not accounted well for the
diversity 0 'i 1npu 1'it> language !'ornicl in the biblical corpus. It is my view
that assessing this diversity should play a far more central role irr scholarship 0 >r impurity, as should, too, examining the relationship between
impurity eonstnretions and the live( c^rcricuccs o f Israelites.
268
she exhibits a very different approach to Israelite texts and customs than
tire one she utilizes in Purity and Danger to assess the purity coirccptioirs
o f other groups throughout the world.5 Nonetheless, Purity and Danger
was and remains an influential work among biblical scholars both for its
trcatincuts o f Israelite ideas and for its wider analysis o f purity rituals
cross-culturally. In both, Douglas emphasizes the systematic nature o f
purity conceptions. "Where there is hrt'. she avers, "there is system'.
Like Mary Douglas, lacob Milgrom has been a towering figure hr the
study o f Israelite purity, and like Douglas, Milgrom has proposed a
unified basis for the purity laws. According to Milgrom, Israelite purity
conceptions are grounded not in a symbolic view o f fire body, as Douglas
argued, but rather in a priestly regard for life. Thus, things that were
5. In fact, in the preface tile 2002 edition of,Purity andDanger, Douglas goes so far
as to reverse her earlier analysis oflsraelite dietary laws, stating it was a major mistake
in various ways. She writes tliat she was particularly mistaken to have accepted uiiquestioiiingly that the rational,, compassionate God ofthe Bible would ever have been so
inconsistent as to make abominable creatures (pp. xiii, X V ). This is a remarkable aboutface, corresponding 1 Douglass move away 0 antliropological approaches toward
the theological ones exliibited in her books. In the Wilderness (1993; rev. ed., London:
Oxford University Press, 2001); Leviticus as Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999); and ' s Teat's: The Priestly Work o f Reconciliation ( 0 : Oxford University Press, 2004). For ail extended critique of tiiese works, see T.M. Lemos, The
Universal and the 1 '11 ;Mary Douglas and the Politics 0 fI 111purity,./jR 89.2 (2009),
pp. 236-51. The fact that Douglas calls the analysis found in her 1966 book a major
mistake should 110t, I believe, prejudice one unduly against that analysis, considering the
influence that PurityandDangerlias had and the fact tliat Douglasmore recent work 011
tile Israelites departs so drastically the methods tliat have been seen nonnative in
the discipline of anthropology for decades, as varied as that discipline is and has been.
6. otliers before Milgrom, too, have comiected purity/impurity to a life/death opposition, but the tlieory best associated with Milgrom, who most developed it. One rlier
discussion of note may be found August Dill11)11111. Die BftcherExodus mid Leviticus
(ed. Victor Ryssel; Leipzig: F. Hirzel, 3rd edn, 1897). While Milgrom is sometimes
thought of as limiting his impurity-as-symbol-of-deatli explanation to p, this is in actuality
not borne out by Milgroms own words. For example, he wi'ites /. / .A Book /
' / ' ( Mimieapolis: Forfress Press, 2004): 111the Israelite liiind, blood was
tile chief symbol of 1. .. Thus it was tiiat Israelalone among tile peoplesrestricted
impurity solely to tliose physical conditions involving tile loss of vaginal blood and
en, the forces oflife, and to the coqise and to scale disease, wliich visually manifested
the approach 0 'deatli (p. 123). Virtually the exact saille statements are found 111
Mrtgroms masterworkhis Anchor Bible commentary, Leviticus 1-16: .4 Translotion with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991),p. 767.
In speaking of tile Israelite mind rather
269
tiian tire Aaronid priests, he niakes clear tliat he sees his explanatien of tile basis of
impurity as applying to Israelite texts and cnltnre in general.
7. Milgrom states in response to tiris that it is eqnally logical, it' not more so, to
argue. ..the pig was declared anomalous becarrse it was inherently repugnant as to say the
reverse, that it was repugnant because it was anomalous, as Douglas claims (Leviticus 116, p. 649). R. Bulmer (Why is tire Cassowary Not a Bird? A Problem ot'Zoological
Taxonomy among the Karam ofthe New Guinea Highlands,A/WS 2 [1967], pp. 23 -)
aird others had earlier criticized Douglas orr the same grounds. An interesting back-andfortlr exchange occurs between Milgronr and Douglas orr tills matter. See Douglas,
Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975],
p. 272; Milgronr, Leviticus 1-16, p. 649; and Douglas, Sacred Contagion, irr Jolm F.A.
Sawyer (ed.), Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Alary Douglas [.TSOTSup, 227;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996], p. 105).
8. As Frederick L Simoons, Joseph Henuiirger, and Marvin Flarris have argrred. See
Sm100ns,EatNotThisFlesh:FoodAvoidancesintheOldlfrorld(Madiso11:\Jnive1sityoi
Wisconsin Press, 1961 ); Heiminger, Puret et Impuret, Supplment au Dictionnaire de
la Bible 9(1979), pp. 398-554; and Hauls, Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles
ofCultttre (New York: Vintage Books, 1974), andCulturalAIaterialism: The Snuggle
yreMgo/L/rre(NewYork:RandonrHouse,1979).Henningerstatesfurtherthat
tire Israelites, and various 0 tirer groups in tire region with strong ties to pastoral!snr,
rejected tire pig because of its association witii the sedenta!y lifestyle (Puret et
Impuret, pp. 476-82, esp. 479 Even Douglas makes a similar statement; seePurityand
Danger, p. 56, Flemringer outlines the various explanations of tire prohibition on pork
given by different scholars
to the 1970s, For more recent treatments oflsraelite dietary
prescriptions, see Walter .1. Houston, Purity andAlonotheism: Clear mid UncleanAnimals
in Biblical Law (JSOTSup, 140; Sheffield; JSGT Press, 1993), and Towards an Integrated
Reading of tire Dietary/ Laws ofLeviticus, in Roll'Rendtorff and Robert A. Kugler, with
Sarah Smith Bartel (eds.). The Book ofLeviticus: Composition and Reception (Leiden:
Brill, 2003), pp. 142-61; and Naphtali Meshel, Food for Thoughts: Systems ofCategoriZation m Leviticus W'. llTR 101.2 (2008), pp. 203-29, among other works.
9. Milgronr, Leviticus 116, p. 650.
270
towards this particular animal that was the primary impetus for the
requirement that animals must chew tlicir cud to be considered clean. In
this way, Milgrom connects prohibited animals with death. He 1'urtlicr
hirhs the dietary laws to his life/death opposition by arguing that diese
laws are meant to 'teach die Israelite reverence for life by...reducing his
choice o f flesh to a animals'.'''
W hat o fth e other sources o f defilement? Douglas sees the proposed
purity system as symbolizing the social body by assigning impurity to the
physical one. Hence, purity rules centering on the body's cirlranccs and
exits relate to social boundaries and not merely physical ones. Yet,
Milgrom A approach, as we saw, is very different. According to him and
various others before and after him, the' sources o f impurity all relate to
death. In the case o f some impurities, tliis relationship is obvious. For
example, one ofthe major sources ofim purity is tliat brought on by contact with an actual corpse. Another major source is skin disease, which is
explicitly associated with death ill Num. 12.12. There. Yahweh punishes
Miriam for criticizing Moses by striking herw ith skin disease, and Aaron
pleads with Yahweh, saying, 'Do not let her be like one stillborn, whose
flesh is half consumed when ft comes out o f its m other's w om b'.11
Connecting the other sourecs o f defilement with death requires a bit more
creativity. According to Milgrom, abnormal genital discharges in men or
women defile because, like skin disease or corpses, they 'symbolize the
forces o f death '.'1Milgrom, however, is not as explicit as one would like
about how this is so, leaving one to surmise that it is because these
discharges interfere with tire bodys reproductive system, and thus with
its ability to produce life. Milgrom connects menstruation with death in a
similar fashion. Menstruation defiles because blood represents the 'life
force' and its loss 'represents death '.'1 One also surmises that urenstruation defiles because a wom an's blood fiow marks the time where she is
unable to conceive, and is thus in opposition to her ability to produce life,
though Milgrom does not state this explicitly. Certainly, Milgrom is clear
in rejecting Douglas's rationale for such impurities, which is that a
discharging body lacks wholeness, and that 'the idea ol' liolliress was
10. ^lilgrnin, Leviticus 1-16, p. 735.
11. Biblical translations are 0 tire N R S V , unless otiierwise note!, though I substihite
impure and impurity fortheNRSVs urrclean aird uncleanness irrfranslatiirg forms of
the Hebrew mot t-m~ and render tire tetragrannnaton as ahweh rather tiran L ord.
12. Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16, p. 768.
13. Mrigrom, Leviticus 116, p. 46.
271
272
Lev. 17.11-14; Deut. 12.23)', ...only [the loss some kinds ofblood
are contaniinating'. 'Richard Whitekettle similarly states:
Note that tire Levitical interest 111 blood was limited to vaginal discharges.
Numerous situations in which there is potentially fatal bleeding, as
woimds or 111
the workplace, are not the subject of legislative
strictures. If there is no concern with an aura of death ill many situations in
which it would seem appropriate (e.g., a woodchopper whose hand has been
cut off), it could not have been a concern 111 more inappropriate situations
(N.B., 110 Oman has ever menstruated to death).
273
^[ i s . more controllable a 1
1
274
31. Robert Parker, Kliasma: Purification and Pollution in Early Greek Religion
(Oxford; Oxford University Press, 1983).
32. Of eourse, there is a fair amount of evidenee that some Israelites did see Yalrweh
as having a eonsort. See, among other works, Jndith M. Hadley, The Cult ofAsherah in
AncientIsraelandJudah:EvidenceforaHebrewGoddess(Can\b 1idge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), and William Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk
Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005).
33. Irr speaking ofthe death of gods, I refer primarily to the slaying of Apsu, Tiamat,
and Qingu 111 tile Babylonian Epic of Creation.
275
34. See Adolph Bchler, Studies in Sin cmdAtonement in the Rabbinic Literature o f
the First Centnty (London: xford University Press, 1928), and David Zvi Hoffnramr,
Das Buell Leviticus (Berlhr: M. Poppelauer, 1905-1906).
35. As Milgrom writes, the plirase is literally You shall not use your lying for seed
(semen) or You shall not use your penis for sex (Leviticus 17-22: A New Translation
with Introduction and Commentary [AB, 3A; New York, Doubleday, 2000], p. 1550).
36. O rtoMlek.
37. Translation mine.
276
Frymer-Kensky also points otfi that while the rilual pollubons last a set
period oftim e and can be cleansed by ritual Ul;aus. what she ealls "danger
pollutions last indefinitely, and eaititol be ritually ameliorated, Also,
while many l'itual pollutions are contagious for example, someone
suffering from skin disease or venereal disease can make someone else
defiled for a day through touching thmt daug;r pollutions are not
contagious in this way. As she puts it, "One does not share the danger of
an adulterer or o f someone who has eaten blood by touching h im ... There
is, however, an ultimate danger to fire people, for if too mauy individuals
commit these deeds, then the whole society might be considered polluted
and might thus be in langer 01'a collective catastrophe. 39 Lcvitieus 18
threatens just such a 0 against the Israelites if they engage in
certain behaviors, and asse'1'ts that the "vomhmg out' o f th e previous
inhabitants o fthe land was due to such mt'ractions
Like Frymer-Kensky, David W right also sees two major types o f
impurities in the biblical a ^ u s ; these he calls "tolerated impurities' and
"prohibited impurities .Temporary impurities like those deriving f'rom
sexual contact, disease, and , as well as those deriving 1'roin
certain types o f sacrifices, all o f which may be cleansed through ritual
means, are classified by W right as tolerated impurities. This eatygory
generally corresponds with what Ftymer-Kensky calls ritual pollutions.
W right's category o f prohibited impurities, however, does not overlap as
neatly whir F^urcr-K cusky's Imrgcr belief's. For example, Wright subdivides prohibited impurities into two classes, those that are intentional,
38. Tikva Fiymer-Kensky, Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,
in Carol L. Meyers and Michael Connor (eds.). The Word ofthe Lord Shall Go Forth:
Essays <Honor
277
7-7*
279
1
. Eve Levavi Feinstein, Sexual Pollution ill the Hebrew Bible (unpublished PlrD
dissertation, Haivard Universit, 2010),
288, 326, 330-31.
280
52.
See particularly Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory, //
281
Olyan examines in detail how cuhic and other social hierarchies are both
created and maintained by purity coirstructioirs. in contrast to Klawans,
wlro maintains, in my view unconvincingly, that biblical purity laws
are not fuirdanrcntally concerned with promoting social hierarchies.51
53. The work ofKazen is a noteworthy exception.
54. See, for example, Olyan, Rites and Rank, William K. Gilders, Blood Ritual in the
Hebrew Bible: Meaning mid Power (Baltimore: The Jolms Hopkins University Press,
2004); James w. Watts, Ritual and Rhetoric <Leviticus:
From Sacrifice
Scripture
(Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2007); GeraldA. Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap:
Ritual mid Ritual Texts<
the Bible (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), among others.
55. Olyan, Rites and Rank, p. 38.
5b. Jonathan Klawans, Concepts of Purity ill the Bible, in Adele Berlin, Marc Zvi
Brettler, and Michael Fishbane (eds.), The
Study Bible (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2004), pp. 2041-47 (2041-44).
282
Although Olyan's approach Is more line with what has become the
norm in ritual studies, his scholarship has not garnered the level o f
attention as has the wod ofKlaw ans and others whose primary focus has
bccu in grouping and systematizing conceptions o f purity rather thau in
examining w hatpurhy constructions do, lrow they functioned in Israelite
culture and society to establish and reinforce lines between social groups,
as well as to shape give order to the lives o f Israelites .
Anotlier tendency of scholarship on Israelite impurity is that many
seholars have made the assumption that the authors o fp , ifn o t explicit in
providing explanations f'or purity customs, were nonetlreless systematic in
theirpresentation ofim purity rules. Certainly, the p writers are systematic
in the sense that tlrey delineate in one collection a wide variety ofpru'ity
laws. This was clearly a conscious process on the part o fp , which dil'l'crentiates these writers treatment ofimpurity from that 01'. for example, the
writers o fth e books 01' Kiugs. who merely refer to impurity customs
offhandedly if they relate to the larger narrati ve they are presenting and
are not concerned with defilement as such. P s process o f compilation is
not equivalent, however, to inventing a purity system out o f whole cloth
As stated above, purity concerns are attested irr a wide range 01' biblical
sources. Virtually all ofthe major sources 01' impurity irr p are also seen
as defiling in other biblical texts. 'I'lris was tire case with seminal impurity. menstnral impurity, corpse impurity, and so forth.58p may have been
organizing and delineating, and in all likelihood expanding, but what the
p writers were building upon were purity conceptions and practices
stirrin g ly already widespread in their own culture. It does not make good
sense, then, to speak ofthe symbolic system underlying P's purity collection in Lcr iticu 1 -
284
seems to be the only plausible reason for her ritual bathing. Jdt. 9 is also rife with
ambiguous pollution language that might refer to Gentiles eonveying impurity.
64. See
Pollution, Purification, and Purgation, p. 401; Malul,
Knowledge, Control, and Sex, p. 380; among ofiiers, Eilberg-Schwartz is a bit mom specific and says Israelite priests do not list excrement as a source of contamination (Tile
Savage in Judaism, p. 189).
63. Zech. 3 seems to share the same conception. See below for more 011 filis text.
66. Feinstein discusses tills matter, as well, though my treatment differs in some ways.
286
287
flanked by the angel ofY ahw eh and the angebe accuser. Verse 3 tells us
that Joshua was wearing filthy garm ents', hegctdtm sfptn. The adjective
used for "filthy "dirty' refers elsewhere to vomit (Isa. 28.8) Ol'hunian
excrement (2 Kgs 18.2?: Isa. 36.12), and the noun form ofthis root
to human waste in those very passages in Dmt'rono1uy (23.14) and
Ezekiel (4.12) that attribute Impur t> to this substance. Perhaps even more
interesting is that the verses that follow state that Joshua's filth-covcrcd
clothing should be replaced with festal apparel' and with a "clean
turban'. The word used here for clean is thr, the very term signil'ying
ritual purity in so many biblical texts. One must ask, then, whether not
the author ol'Zcchariall truly recognized a distinction between "dirtiness'
and impurity, for certainly Joshua's clotlung would hall under both
categories. It would be difficult indeed to argue that clothing covered in
human feces was ever merely ritually defiling and not "dirty'. In a similar
I'asluom tire Hebrew root h-r-r can designate both ritual purity and
hygienic cleanliness. In Isa. 49.2 the root is used to describe polishing an
arrow, but just three ehapte rs later, in Isa. 52.11, the same root is used to
mandate ritual purity ("touch no impure thing... purify yourselves
[,hibbem't], you who carry the vessels ofY ahw eh'). A similar situation
obtains with the' roots z-k-'n and z-k-k. These roots generally refer to
cleanliness in a hygienic or aesthetic sense, but an adjective derived I'roin
fire latter root is used in Exod. 27.20; 30.34, and Lev. 24.2 to refer to
pure, as in unmixed, olive oil and frankincense to be used in ritual
contexts. Relevant, too, is Ps. ?3.13. which states, Vainly, I have made
my heart clean {zikkt I'hcihl) and washed my hands in innocence'.7
Proverbs 20.9 even puts fire root z-k-'n in parallel eoirstruetion wiffi the
root t-h-r: "Wlro can say, ""I have made my heart cffian {zikkt libb); I am
pure (.thart) from my sin?' Isaiah 1.16 similarly reads: "Wash yourselves; make yourselves ele'air (,htmakk); remove the evil ofyour doings
I'rom before my eyes'. These verses reveal a fuzzy semantic boundary
between hygienic eLanline:ss. moral cleanliness, and ritual purification.
The above passages also discuss washing in conjunction wiffi what
Klawans would call moral impurity. They are not tire only texts that
Klawans would classify as dealing wiffi moml impurity that speak of
iruril'ying oneself '
sin through ritual means. Another example is
Jer. 2.22-23, which reads: ""Though you wash yoursclf\ itl 1 lye and use
much soap, tire stain o f your guilt is still before , says the Tord
288
Yahweh. "How can you say, '1 am not defiled, 1 have not gone after the
Baals'?' Here, moral impurity is tied to idolatry, one oftirc three major
elasses o f sins leading to moral impurity, according to Klawans, but ritual
purification is also described. If this 1 purification is only figurative,
tiren must not the purported 'm oral' inrpurityalso be figurative? (Klawans
has argued strenuously against moral impurity being merely figurative,
metaphorical, or secondary in nature to ritual impurity.) If the ritual
purification is a reflection o f real practices, then would this not demonstrate that at least some Israelites thought one could purify oneself from
sin by ritual means?73 O f course, Jerem iah's point is that this is not
actually possible; sin cannot be thus cleansed. Nonetheless, Ezekiel 36
presents a similar situation. Klawans cites this latter text as one that
evidences moral impurity,74 but V . 25 speaks ol'Yalrweh sprinkling water
upon the people to cleanse them. Again, is ft plausible to see the moral
impurity in this passage as non-metaphorical while maintaining that the
ritual purification is metaphorical, or while maintaining that moral
impur ly cannot be purged through tuai means? The writers ofthe Dead
Sea Scrolls saw impurity and sin as being clo$fly related, and prescribed
ritual purification for sin.75 If they confused these categories, perhaps
some 01' tire Israelites who came before tireur had done the same. Or
perhaps no such clear separation o f the categories o f ritual impurity,
moral impurity, siu. and hygiene even existed in the minds o f Israelites,
or some Israelites, to begin with.
All ofthe eases ust described make it abundantly clear that there is not
one, but rather various sets o f purity constructions in the Hebrew Bible.
While there are o f course areas o f agreement between these, there are also
many areas o f disagreement and even areas o f internal inconsistency. In
my view, none o f this should be surprising. It has been argued for some
time now that the desire for consistency, rather than being a universal
value, is instead a h a l l m a r k o f modernism and o f W estern intellectual
thought more generally?" Not even the writers o f ?, who are the most
technical and the most explicitly concerned with purity, claim to be
putting forth a consistent purity system or tell us why they think certarn
73. See alse Kazen, Dirt and Disgust, p . , saAEmorons in Biblical Law, pp. 2729, fer a critique ef Klawanss treatinent 1 'tliis and etlier passages.
74. Klawans, Impurity Sin, p. 30.
73. As Klawans himself discusses. See Imparity and Sin, particularly Chapter 3.
76.
See, for example, Beverley c. Southgate, Postmodernism in History: Fear
Freedom? (London: Routledge, 2003), pp. 128-33.
289
things are defiling. W hy does one find different ideas about purity in
different biblieal texts? It is because rituals are by nature constantly
sltil'ferg and. more often than not, localized. It also seems probable that
different Israelites may have had differing perspectives. There is no
reason to think that ideas about purity were any more static in ancient
Israel than were ideas about intermarriage, kingship, orthe proper way to
worship ahw eh, all o f which scholars widely agree changed over fee
course of Israel's history, and iu some cases varied from region to region.
77. Olyan makes a similar comment; see his Rites and Rank, p. 38.
290
291
language has been seen as less precise and systematic than that o f the
Priestly authors o f Leviticus, and has thus been treated far less ol'tcii by
scholars. Yet, each ofthese books presents an interesting and potentially
instructive example ofhow Israelite impurity constructions were shaped
hr response to ccrtaiu historical events. More specifically, in Ezekiel and
Lamentations, impurity, shame, and othcrciuotious are all marshaled and
interwoven to convey trese authors" traumatized responses to exile and
defeat.
In the book o f Ezekiel, one sees this particularly in chs. l b aird 23 o f
tire book, where Jerusalem is described as the adulterous wife o f Y a h ^ h
In these chapters, the word zncL "whore", is applied to Jerusalem more
than two dozen times, and one also finds the following tenns repeatedly
used: tcbt, "abominations'; zim, "lewdness"; cerw, "nakedness";
krlimm, shame"; and various forms ofthe root t-m-3, to be or become
defiled". Ezekiel 23.28-30 reads: 'Lor drus says the lordYahweh: ! will
deliver you into the hands o f those whom you hate, into the hands of
those from whom you turned in disgust; and they shall deal with you in
hatred... and leave you stark naked (crm w cerw% and the nakedness of
your whorings shall be exposed. Your lewdness and your ^Irorlngs
(w mmmtk wetazntayik) have brought this upon you, because you
whored o u r s e lf out to the nations, and defiled yourself witli then Idols .
The combined and repeated use ofthe terms listed above woi'lss together
in these chapters to express the overwhelming sense o f disgust that
Ezekiel feels, and wants the reader to feel, toward the transgressions of
this allegorical woman, Jerusalem, and toward the defeated Israelites she
represents. Them is a primal nature to the emotions conveyed by this text,
a feature that it shares with Lamentations, a book that responds to the
selfsame historical events.
!amenlations, hl<c I3zcl<1cl. 0 l1rs together tlie language ol'clcfilciucnt
with that o f humiliation as it describes in highly evocative terms toe
conquest and suffering ofthe Israelites. La1nmtati01rs 1.8-9 states: "Jerusafrin sinned terribly, so she has become a nic/c/ci (menstmal impurity); all
who honored her despise her, torthey have seen hernakedness (cerw) ...
Her iiupiii'ity (tumcV) was to her skirts. ' Lamentations 1.17 again says that
Jerusalem fas become a "menstrual impurity'; 3.45 says Yahweh has
79. Translation niine.
80. 1 draw here upon Kazens argmnents regarding tire eoimection between disgust
and impurity, though he does not examine these passages 111 particular or how ^purity
language is used 111 an exilic context.
292
made the Judeans 'trash refuse'; 4.14 states that the people wander
the streets 'defiled with blood'; 4.21 again speaks o f nudity; and 5.1 of
herp, 'sham e'.81 Although there is no partieular reason to think that the
author 01' L^umtatons was a priest like the prophet Ezekiel was, one
nonetlreless sees here a blending ofim purity language with othertypes of
language, tire purpose o f which is to articulate a eery deep sense o f disgust and humiliation. The fact that these Israelite writers, who very much
appear to have been suffering 1'rom what we would term 'traum a',1 draw
upon impurity language to express their traumatized emotionality in my
view demonstrates the centrality ofim purity to Israelite culture. A sense
ol'uuirurity.1 and seemingly one centered very much in the body, was just
as present irr their ^ y c h e s as was a sense o f shame, rage (in the case o f
Ezekiel), and profound loss ( the case 01' Laiucntations). There is no
systematizing objective in these works and, in the case 01' f omentations
in particular, tire cult is not the primary 1'ocal point. Yet, the book still
repeatedly uses impurity language. 1 would argue that attempting to plaee:
the impurity language in these texts into one particular category o f
impurity misses the point, telling us far less about these texts and their
writers than does examining how these writers were responding to the
traumas that bcfidl them and using the imagery and terminology of
defilement to so.
W hat I suggest, then, is a move away from a synchronic approach in
which one examines the biblical purity system' to a more lustoricizctl
perspective assessing how different authors and different communities
made use o f purity construetions. and also manipulated these construetions in different contexts and as a response to different lustorieal
situations. While the question o f how biblical texts reflect actual social
practices is athom y one, it is a question that eannot be sidestepped if one
is to make any attempt to reconstruct Israelite culture and society, pr even
8 . Translations mine.
82. On the ! ;
of Ezekiel, see T.M. Lentos, They Have Become Women:
Judean Diaspora and Tostcolonial Theories of Gender and Migration, in Saul M. Olyati
(y.\SocialTheotyar 1dtheSfttdyofIsmeliteReligiorr:Essaysin Retrospect aidProspect
(Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), pp. 81-109, where I cite recent works
discussing Ezekiel and trauma. See also Ruth ?oser. Das Ezechielbuch / TraumaLiteratur (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2012).
83. I draw here upon tile ideas of ?ietre Bourdieu regarding tile sense ofhonor, and
Catlierine Bells related idea of die sense of ritual. See Bourdieu, Outline ofa Theory
Practice (touts. Richard Nice; Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology;
Cambridge: Cambridge University ?ress, 1977); and Bell,
Theory, RitualPractice.
293
294
theological concerns. To put the matter simply, the type o f analysis that
seeks ever to schematize almost always sees ritual as secondary to belief
and the body as secondary to the mind. Yet, in assuming such simplistic
dichotomies, we lim it ratlierthan expand our knowledge oflsraelite ritual
and Israelite culture more broadly.
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection w ith perm ission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, w ho also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may m aintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request perm ission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For inform ation regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaform atioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact inform ation for the copyright holder(s).
A bout ATLAS:
The A TLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions o f previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and m anaged by the Am erican Theological Library A ssociation
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endow m ent !).
The design and final form o fth is electronic docum ent is the property o fth e A m erican
Theological Library Association.