Where There Is Dirt, Is There System? Revisiting Biblical Purity Constructions

Abstract

This article contends that biblical scholarship on impurity has often been concerned with attempting to find one symbolic system underlying Israelite purity constructions. This tendency is clear in the work of Mary Douglas and Jacob Milgrom, but even in more recent scholarship the tendency to treat the diverse body of texts discussing impurity as a ‘system’ has continued. Even recent attempts to place all of these texts into two or more categories of impurity have had to force biblical texts to fit categories that supposedly encompass all of the Hebrew Bible. This article presents various important inconsistencies among the purity constructions of different biblical texts in order to demonstrate that these constructions are not in fact ‘systematic’. There is no ‘system of Israelite impurity’. Moreover, in positing such a system, scholars have displayed assumptions and utilized methods that are at odds with those of contemporary ritual studies. This article argues instead for an embodied approach to studying Israelite purity constructions that 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.

Purity in Early Judaism: Current Issues and Questions

“…The third approach is non-symbolic and non-systematic. Kazen (2010a) and Lemos (2009) fit here. This approach assumes that thinking of purity as a symbolic system distorts data and privileges discursive theological thought over embodied ritual practice.…”

“…Revisiting Biblical Purity Constructions’ (2013). Against Douglas and her followers, Lemos argues that purity in the Hebrew Bible cannot be described as a system, or even two or three systems, and that the attempt to do so mischaracterizes Israelite purity constructions as ‘being static, unitary, and subsumed to theological concerns’ (2013: 293-94). Lemos’s argument is basically deconstructive and unfolds in two parts.…”

“…In the first part, Lemos outlines the disagreement that exists among biblical scholars concerning the rationale for Israelite purity laws: Milgrom (1991) posits death as the rationale, Wright (1992) posits death and sexuality, Klawans (2000) suggests two related systems of ritual and moral purity, and Hayes (2002) builds on the work of Klawans by adding genealogical purity as a third system found in Ezra-Nehemiah. In this survey of literature, Lemos seeks to show that the attempt to understand Israelite purity constructions as a coherent system ‘has in some ways distorted rather than enhanced our understanding of Israelite culture and religion’ (2013: 283).…”

The Preface to the Hebrew Translation of Purity and Danger

“…On this quotation see Fardon (2013). For an extensive discussion of purity and impurity systems, taking its lead from Douglas's insistence that 'dirt' or 'matter out of place' means that there must be a system, but arguing that there is no single biblical purity system, see Lemos (2013). 5.…”

“…Despite this intention, Douglas's writings on the Bible, especially her later contributions, were viewed as apologetic theologizing and special pleading in some assessments written after her death. See, for example, Lemos (2009Lemos ( , 2013 and Schmitt (2008). 18.…”