99 research outputs found
The Use of Leviticus in Ezra-Nehemiah
No full textIn light of the current disparity of views regarding the dating of Leviticus and Ezra-Nehemiah, this study revisits similar traditions found in these books in order to gain a sense of logical progression. The author calls attention to elements from Leviticus which are present in Ezra-Nehemiah but not found elsewhere in the Torah. She argues for the chronological priority of significant cultic traditions from Leviticus over their counterparts in Ezra-Nehemiah
The Two Meanings of ’āšam in Leviticus 5
No full textThis article explores how the noun ’āšam is used in Leviticus 5 and focuses especially on the argument that the noun has two meanings. A brief look at a number of translations and the way commentators have translated the different occurrences of the noun will support this argument, but many of these commentators do not offer any explanations for why this is so. This article attempts to fill this gap. It is argued that ’āšam has two meanings, one being a general umbrella meaning and one referring to the sacrifice. From a methodological perspective, much of this article consists of a synchronic reading of Leviticus 5, with some engagement with other texts in Leviticus, especially chapter 4. The article also examines the diachronic debates around this chapter and especially around the history of the ’āšam. The author argues that the Priestly author coined an umbrella term for Leviticus 5 because of the more serious nature of the trespasses in this chapter
The exegetical interpretation of Leviticus 19:1-18 and the restoration of the Jewish community in the post-exilic period
No full textThe goal of this thesis to look at the functions of the commands and laws in Leviticus 19:1-8 as follows: (1) the function of Leviticus 19: 1-18 and the Holiness Code; (2) Leviticus 19:1-18 as an aid to the restoration of Jewish Community. (3) The Prophet Ezekiel's understanding of the Holiness Code and possible connections to Leviticus 19:1-18. The thesis is divided into sections as follows: Chapter 1 will present an exegesis of Leviticus 19:1-18. The relationship between these two sources will be discussed in chapters 1 and 2 in order to show the function of Leviticus 19 in relation to the other Pentateuchal sources. Chapter 2 will examine the life of the Jews in the exilic. Chapter 3 will present the ideas in Leviticus 19 against life in the exile. The Book of Ezekiel with its close relationship to H will also be brought into focus
Centralizing the Cult: The Holiness Legislation in Leviticus 17–26. FAT 134. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019.
No full textThis work provides new insights into the relationship between the Holiness legislation in Leviticus 17–26 and processes of cultic centralization in the Persian period. The author departs from the classical theory that Leviticus 17–26 merely presume, with minor modifications, a concept of centralization articulated in Deuteronomy. She shows how Leviticus 17–26 use ritual legislation to make a new, and distinctive case as to why the Israelites must defer to a central sanctuary, standardized ritual processes, and a hegemonic priesthood. This discourse of centralization reflects the historical challenges that faced priests in Jerusalem during the Persian era: in particular, the need to compensate for the loss of a royal sponsor, to pool communal resources in order to meet socio-economic pressures, and to find new means of negotiating with the sanctuary at Mount Gerizim and with a growing diaspora
Green Eggs and Shawarma: Reinterpreting the Bible, Reforming Mission, with Leviticus\u27 non-indigenous resident as a Test Case
No full textThis article encourages Christians to revisit and reinterpret the Bible in order to more faithfully align with God\u27s mission in the world. As a test case, the article reinterprets the socio-religious status of the non-indigenous resident in Leviticus and concludes with some possibilities for reforming mission theology and praxis. The first section of the article reviews the conventional interpretation of Leviticus\u27 as one granted absolute religious freedom. Against this view, the body of the article contends that the in Leviticus was bound in covenant to Yahweh, yet free to practice some foreign customs and practices. To argue for this, the article reconsiders the intent of the Holiness Code\u27s injunctions; reinterprets three pertinent laws; and identifies an important contextual limiting factor in Lev 18-20. In the conclusion, the author offers three ways this fresh understanding of the in Leviticus intersects with, and may serve to reform, present cross-cultural witness to the Gospe
References to the Book of Leviticus in the Gospel of Matthew
No full textThis thesis called "References to the Book of Leviticus in the Gospel of Matthew", deals with a problem, which has not been adressed as such so far. In the Gospel of Matthew about twenty allusions to the Book of Leviticus can befound, as suggested in the critical edition of the New Testament, edited by Nestle-Alland. In Matthew, some of the allusions are owershadowed by quotations from the books of Exodus or Deuteronomy, which are far more frequently used. Other allusions are unique, as seen in the example of the story of the cleansed lepper. Allusions and echoes are dealt with, rather than direct quotations. In the introduction, the problem of the Old Testament quotations is introduced, followed by the first chapter describing telegraphically all the references to Leviticus in the Sermon on the mount. The author starts with the text from Leviticus, comparing Greek and Hebrew text. Exegesis of this scripture is followed by translation of the relevant scripture form Matthew, comparison of the text with other synoptics, exegesis and exposition of the relation between the two texts. The references to the book of Leviticus seem to enable us better understanding of some situations presented in the gospel. Majority of the allusions explain the cultural background. They explain to nowadays reader, whose..
Why is there an sacrifice in Leviticus 14?
No full textDATA AVAILABILITY : The author confirms that data supporting the findings of this
study are available within the article.This article engages with the issue of the אָשָׁם sacrifice in Leviticus 14. Firstly, the paper provides
an overview of the extensive cleansing ritual in Leviticus 14. Then the issue of the relation
between צָרַ֫עַת and sin is addressed, with some scholars arguing against any causal connection
in Leviticus 14. Although the latter argument can be made from a literary perspective, the
presence of the אָשָׁם sacrifice, which is usually linked with sin against the sanctuary and
YHWH, spoils the argument. After engaging with the meaning of the אָשָׁם sacrifice, the article
presents another possible solution by arguing that we should distinguish between what the
authors of the text thought and how their audience might have understood the relation
between צָרַ֫עַת and sin.
INTRADISCIPLINARY AND/OR INTERDISCIPLINARY IMPLICATIONS : The article makes use of traditional
historical-critical insights and consists mostly of an intradisciplinary discussion. The study’s
conclusions could potentially have implications for disciplines such as ritual studies and
pastoral care.http://www.ve.org.zaam2024Old Testament StudiesNon
Bodily and moral impurity in Leviticus : an integrated purification system
No full textDie artikel lewer ’n bydrae tot die debat oor twee soorte onreinheid in Levitikus. Die eerste
helfte van die artikel volg ’n sinkroniese benadering en gee ’n oorsig oor waar die terme vir
rein en onrein voorkom en watter rituele (indien enige) voorgeskryf word om onreinhede weg
te neem. In die volgende onderafdeling word aangetoon hoe hierdie begrippe anders in die
Heiligheidswetgewing gebruik word. In hoofstukke 18 tot 20 van Levitikus is daar wel sprake
van onreinheid, maar geen rituele om dit weg te neem nie. Onreinheid kan egter ook van ’n
ander aard wees. Saam met die oorsig oor die Heiligheidswetgewing word die diakroniese
debat ingelei. Die meeste navorsers is dit eens dat die Heiligheidswetgewing deur latere
priesterlike skrywers geskryf is en dat hulle ook hulle redaksionele stempel op sekere tekste in
Levitikus 1–16 afgedruk het. Op hierdie punt word die debat oor die twee soorte onreinheid,
naamlik liggaamlike en rituele onreinheid, op die spits gedryf. Die artikel toon aan dat daar
inderdaad argumente ten gunste van hierdie onderskeid is, maar voer ook aan dat dit nie te ver
gevoer moet word nie. Dit is duidelik dat die skrywers van die Heiligheidswetgewing gepoog
het om beide soorte onreinheid in een kultiese stelsel te integreer. Aan die einde van die artikel
word aangetoon dat daar tog spanning in hierdie verenigde stelsel oorgebly het en dat die
priesterlike skrywers nie so oortuig was dat hulle kultiese stelsel alle toekomstige onheil sou
afweer nie.The article engages with the debate on the difference between bodily or ritual impurity on the
one hand and moral impurity on the other. The first part of the article provides an overview of
the occurrence of Hebrew terms such as the adjectives clean ( טָהרֹ ) and unclean ( טָמאֵ ), but also
the other manifestations of the roots ט הר and ט אמ as nouns and verbs. The purpose of this
overview is to show how the meaning of these terms changed between Leviticus 1–16 and
17–26; the distinction made in this article between bodily and moral impurity is based on this
observation.
The smaller collection of Leviticus 11–15 on clean and unclean is the part of Leviticus where
the language of impurity is the most prevalent. Leviticus 11 is the most complicated chapter,
though, since the usage of the language of impurity in this chapter does not fit so neatly into
the two different categories of impurity. The chapter provides a list of animals in verses 1–8
which are described as unclean ( טָמאֵ ) and may be eaten. This is followed by lists of water
animals (vv. 9–12), birds (vv. 13–19) and flying insects (vv. 20–23) which are not supposed to
be eaten and are described as detestable ( שֶׁק֥ץֶ ). From verse 24 onwards the chapter is more
interested in the touching of animals. If a person carries the carcass of an animal he is unclean
until the evening and should also wash his clothes. Laundering and waiting are thus the first
cleansing ritual described in Leviticus 11–15 (see 11:25). The problem with the kind of
uncleanness described in Leviticus 11 is that it is different from the other kinds of impurities
described in chapters 12 to 15 in the sense that all the others are natural occurrences where one does not have much of a choice, but you can choose whether you eat of a forbidden animal or
carry around the carcass of an animal.
Thus Leviticus 12 describes the cleansing rituals a woman should follow when she has given
birth, entailing two different time periods depending on whether the child was a boy or a girl.
After waiting out the prescribed period, two sacrifices have to be made, namely a burnt offering
and a purification offering. Leviticus 13 describes the conditions under which a priest will
declare a person or house unclean when צָרעַתַ is found. Leviticus 14 prescribes the rituals
needed when a person or a house recovers from צָרעַתַ . These cleansing rituals are the most
elaborate and involve three phases which include a lot of washing, shaving and laundering,
elaborate rituals involving birds, cedar wood, hyssop and crimson yarn, and finally a ritual
involving a grain offering, guilt offering, burnt offering and a purification offering. Throughout
these chapters the priest is often the subject of the verbs ט אמ and ט הר (always in the Piel) when
he declares a person unclean or clean (after the correct rituals). Leviticus 15 is concerned with
bodily fluids, including exchange of bodily fluids during sexual intercourse, with cleansing
rituals entailing washing, laundering and waiting. Towards the end of this collection Leviticus
15:31 starkly reminds the addressees that not abiding by these rules would lead to death, since
the tabernacle would be made unclean.
The article then moves to consider clean and unclean in the Holiness Code. The author of this
article accepts the view that Leviticus 17–26 was written later than most of Leviticus 1–16 (excluding chapter 10 and a few other scattered texts). The language of holiness appears for
the first time in 19:2, with chapter 19 being the literary flagship of the Holiness Code where
holiness is portrayed as a lifestyle which includes both ethical acts and respect for the cult. The
language of impurity manifests in three different ways in the Holiness Code. First one finds references to impurity which are similar to most of the cases in Leviticus 12–15. Thus Leviticus
17:15 refers to a person who eats of the carcass of an animal that died naturally and who then
must wash himself, launder his clothes and wait until the evening. This kind of impurity where
a ritual solution is at hand is often described as ritual impurity.
The second category takes us to another kind of impurity, which is then often described as
moral impurity. In Leviticus 18:20 and 23 one reads that having sex with your neighbour’s
wife makes you unclean, and the same applies to having intercourse with an animal.
Leviticus 19:31 says that turning to mediums and spirits would also make one unclean, whereas
20:3 states that a person who gives his children to Molech makes the sanctuary unclean. In
these texts specific moral lapses are prohibited with reference to the language of purity.
The third category is similar, but much more general. This category is found in the parenetic
frame of the Holiness Code and now claims that disobedience regarding any of the listed
prohibitions would lead to transgressors’ becoming unclean. Examples of the third category
include Leviticus 18:25, 30 and 20:25. The threat in these verses is clear, namely that this kind
of impurity will lead to the loss of land. These second and third categories are examples of
what one could describe as “moral impurities”.
The distinction between ritual and moral impurity is the subject of a fairly old debate, but has
recently been put forward again in the work of Klawans (2000). For him there are five clear
differences between ritual and moral impurity: (1) Ritual impurity is not sin, but moral impurity is. (2) Ritual impurity is mostly the result of contact and there are ritual solutions, but no ritual
solutions are provided for moral impurity. (3) Ritual pollution leads to temporary impurity, but
moral pollution causes long-term damage. (4) Ritual impurities are controlled by ritual
solutions, but for moral impurity punishment follows and no ritual solutions are provided.
(5) With regard to terminology the root ט אמ is always used for ritual impurity, but for moral
impurity other terms are also used, for example, תֹּועבֵהָ as in Leviticus 18.
Following the criticism by Boda (2009) and Nihan (2013) of Klawans, I prefer to use the term
bodily impurity instead of ritual impurity, since the source of this kind of impurity is usually
the human body. The article engages with the critique offered by Nihan that there were attempts
in Leviticus to integrate the two systems of impurity into a single system. For Nihan
Leviticus 16:16 casts doubt on Klawans’s two systems, since the verse clearly states that
atonement is made for uncleanness, transgressions and all their sins. The article then considers
a text such as Leviticus 16:30. Many scholars agree that from a diachronic perspective this
verse is part of Leviticus 16 which was added by the authors of the Holiness Code. The strange
thing about this verse is that it talks about cleansing (Pi of ט הר ) the addressees of their sins. In
Leviticus 11 to 15 this verb in the Piel is used only with the priest as subject in cases where he
declares somebody clean after the appropriate cleansing rituals, but now the verb is used to
describe getting rid of sin. This verse thus prompts further questions about Klawans’s view that
we have two different systems of bodily and moral impurity. These verses seem to be a clear attempt to integrate the two kinds into one system. Thus, in the light of this verse, the rituals
of Leviticus 16 ultimately eliminate both categories of impurity.
Finally the article shows that although the priestly authors attempted to protect the future from
another catastrophe such as the exile by creating this elaborate system of rituals, there seems
to be a tension within the final text of Leviticus which shows that the authors did not think that
this system was foolproof. In this regard Leviticus 26:40 is contrasted with Leviticus 16:21. In both cases one reads of confession of sins with similar vocabulary used, but in 16:21 it is used
for one of the rituals which takes place on the Day of Atonement. Leviticus 26:40 seems to
speak from the experience of the exile, but also projects a future where the sacrificial cult does
not protect the addressees from future calamity. The text seems to anticipate a time when no
cult would be in existence and the addressees would depend on confession and a gracious God
to be redeemed from their own iniquities.http://www.litnet.co.za/category/akademies/litnet-akademiesam2020Old Testament Studie
Women College Students Situation During Pandemic Time: How’s Their Access to the Future?
No full textThe COVID-19 pandemic is a unique and rare occurrence in the whole world. It compelled colleges to close their doors and transition entirely to distance learning. It posed many challenges in the academe with the abrupt change in the educational landscape. Hence, the study was conceived on determining answers in a 15-question closed-question from a Plan International survey in which women college students were asked about their understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on their life and access to education, welfare, economic security, livelihoods, and access to technology. It was found out that the respondents knew little about COVID- 19, it made a major change in their lives which led to huge effect to their access to their future plans. However, based from their responses on the qualitative side of the study they still have hopes and aspiration despite the pandemic situation. As a result, its impact on female college students, who confront special vulnerabilities, must be recognized, and their experiences and perspectives must be incorporated in the institution\u27s COVID-19 pandemic preparedness processes
Rituals and social capital in the book of Leviticus? An attempt at an interdisciplinary discussion
No full textThe article is an attempt by an Old Testament scholar to engage with a debate taking place
in practical theology. This debate is about the influence of religion and ritual on the formation
of social capital. The author attempts to shed light on this debate by looking at the two
halves of the book of Leviticus, the first half of which is dominated by ritual and the second
half is characterised by a broader communal perspective.http://ngtt.journals.ac.zaam2014mn201
- …
