The Priestly Source makes no explicit reference to the demonic when describing pollution which supposedly sets it apart from non-biblical conceptualizations of impurity. Most scholars explain the Priestly disregard for demons by referring to the advance of monotheism and the subsequent eradication of supernatural forces other than God. Depending on whether monotheism is viewed as gradual process or as the foundation of Israelite religion, commentators either detect a weakened demonic quality in Priestly pollution or claim that the Priestly Source has always been of a non-demonic nature. However, in recent years the idea that monotheism pervades most books of the Hebrew Bible has been increasingly called into question. At the same time, the extensive publication of Assyro-Babylonian ritual texts allows for better understanding of Assyro-Babylonian conceptualizations of impurity. These developments necessitate the reevaluation of the current views on Priestly pollution by examining Assyro-Babylonian texts pertaining to impurity and the demonic. Special attention is given to context and dating of the cuneiform sources used to exemplify the non-demonic nature of Priestly impurity. This renewed comparison of Priestly and Assyro-Babylonian impurity highlights how the Priestly writer frames the concepts of pollution within the context of the sanctuary and its maintenance. The Assyro-Babylonian texts dealing with impurity and demons, by contrast, focus on the individual and his/her relationship to the personal god rather than temple maintenance. Likewise, cuneiform texts that deal with pollution and temple maintenance do not concern themselves with demonic affliction. Consequently, it can be argued that the non-demonic nature of impurity in the Priestly Source is the result of the Priestly focus on the sanctuary and does not give witness to an underlying theological ideal.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
See Frank H. Gorman, The Ideology of Ritual: Space Time and Status in the Priestly Theology (JSOTSup 91; Sheffield: Academic Press, 1990); Frank H. Gorman, “Ritual Studies and Biblical Studies: Assessment of the Past; Prospect for the Future,” Semeia 67 (1994): 13–36. Saul M. Olyan, Rites and Ranks: Hierarchy in Biblical Representation of Cult (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000); Ithamar Gruenwald, Rituals and Ritual Theory in Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 2003); William K. Gilder, Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004); Roy Gane, Ritual Dynamic Structure (Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2004); Gerald Klingbeil, A Comparative Study of the Ritual of Ordination as Found in Leviticus 8 and Emar 369 (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1998); Gerald Klingbeil, Bridging the Gap: Ritual and Ritual Texts in the Bible (BBRSup 1; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007).
See Baruch Levine, In the Presence of the Lord, 78, 82–83. His interpretation of blood manipulation, however, cannot be taken at face value, but has to be viewed in context of more recent evaluations of the sacrificial rite. Scholars disagree concerning the role of blood manipulation as part of Priestly sacrifices. For studies focusing on the manipulation of blood in general, see William K. Gilder, Blood Ritual in the Hebrew Bible: Meaning and Power (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004); Theodore J. Lewis, “Covenant and Blood Rituals: Understanding Exodus 24:3–8 in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context,” in Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor of William G. Dever (eds. S. Gitin et al.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 341–350. For the ritual manipulation of blood in context of expiation, see Noam Zohar, “Repentance and Purification: The Significance and Semantics of חטאת in the Pentateuch,” jbl 107 (1988): 609–618; Jacob Milgrom, “The Modus Operandi of the Ḥaṭṭā’t: A Rejoinder,” jbl 109 (1990): 111–113; Roy Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement and Theodicy (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2005); Christian Eberhart, Studien zur Bedeutung der Opfer im Alten Testament: die Signifikanz der Blut- und Verbrennungsriten im kultischen Rahmen (wmant 94; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 2002), 222–289. Likewise, the dispatch of the scapegoat has been subject to a multitude of possible interpretations, see footnotes 56, 57, 58 for references.
See Jacob Milgrom, “Priestly (‘P’) Source,” 455; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16, 911.
See Nils Heeßel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik, 80; Tzvi Abusch links the lack of independent demonic activity to the increased complexity of social structure in the second millennium. See Tzvi Abusch, “Witchcraft and the Anger of the Personal God,” in Mesopotamian Magic: Textual Historical and Interpretive Perspectives (Ancient Magic and Divination I; eds. T. Abusch, K. van der Toorn; Groningen: Styx, 1999), 104–105; 108–114.
See Nils Heeßel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik, 49–57. These disorders were oftentimes attributed to transgressions such as adultery, offenses against the personal god and even murder. Ibid.,58–60. For diseases that are considered the result of demonic influence, see JoAnn Scurlock and Burton R. Anderson, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine: Ancient Sources, 505–506; 513–515.
See Francois Thureau Dangin, Rituel Accadiens (Osnabrück: Zettler, 1921), 142:381–382.
Francois Thureau Dangin, Rituel Accadiens, 142:382. Yehezkel Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, 56; “Temple Program for the New Year’s Festival at Babylon,” translated by A. Sachs (anet, 334); E. Jan Wilson, “Holiness” and “Purity” in Mesopotamia (AOAT 237; Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchner Verlag, 1994), 70; Julye Bidmead, The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia (Gorgia Dissertations Near Eastern Studies 2; Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2002), 75; Henrike Anthes-Frey, Unheilsmächte und Schutzgenien, 80, n. 408.
See Jacob Milgrom, “Israel’s Sanctuary,” 392, David P. Wright, “Unclean and Clean,” 739; Christophe Nihan, From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch (FAT 2. 25; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 300 n. 143.
Henrike Anthes-Frey, Unheilsmächte und Schutzgenien, 241; Judit M. Blair, De-Demonising the Old Testament: An Investigation of Azazel, Lilith, Deber, Qeteb and Reshef in the Hebrew Bible (FAT 2, 37; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 62.
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 3; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1021; David P. Wright. The Disposal of Impurity. Elimination rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBL 101; Atlanta: Scholar Press, 1987), 273–274.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 527 | 73 | 17 |
Full Text Views | 257 | 7 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 150 | 22 | 0 |
The Priestly Source makes no explicit reference to the demonic when describing pollution which supposedly sets it apart from non-biblical conceptualizations of impurity. Most scholars explain the Priestly disregard for demons by referring to the advance of monotheism and the subsequent eradication of supernatural forces other than God. Depending on whether monotheism is viewed as gradual process or as the foundation of Israelite religion, commentators either detect a weakened demonic quality in Priestly pollution or claim that the Priestly Source has always been of a non-demonic nature. However, in recent years the idea that monotheism pervades most books of the Hebrew Bible has been increasingly called into question. At the same time, the extensive publication of Assyro-Babylonian ritual texts allows for better understanding of Assyro-Babylonian conceptualizations of impurity. These developments necessitate the reevaluation of the current views on Priestly pollution by examining Assyro-Babylonian texts pertaining to impurity and the demonic. Special attention is given to context and dating of the cuneiform sources used to exemplify the non-demonic nature of Priestly impurity. This renewed comparison of Priestly and Assyro-Babylonian impurity highlights how the Priestly writer frames the concepts of pollution within the context of the sanctuary and its maintenance. The Assyro-Babylonian texts dealing with impurity and demons, by contrast, focus on the individual and his/her relationship to the personal god rather than temple maintenance. Likewise, cuneiform texts that deal with pollution and temple maintenance do not concern themselves with demonic affliction. Consequently, it can be argued that the non-demonic nature of impurity in the Priestly Source is the result of the Priestly focus on the sanctuary and does not give witness to an underlying theological ideal.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 527 | 73 | 17 |
Full Text Views | 257 | 7 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 150 | 22 | 0 |