³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

« Previous | Main | Next »

An Introduction to the Old Testament: Lecture 9

Post categories: ,Ìý

William Crawley | 19:14 UK time, Tuesday, 30 March 2010

scripture.jpgWhat does "holiness" mean? In the next installment of her studies in the Old Testament, Yale University professor Christine Hayes shows how that category, for the ancient Hebrew people, linked notions of moral purity with aspects of cultural and religious identity. She also looks at an ancient text which, when it is invoked in modern moral disputes, has proven extremely controversial -- the book of Leviticus.

The lecture in summary: "The Priestly source (P) found primarily in Leviticus and Numbers is introduced. The symbolism of the sacrificial cult and purity system, the differences between moral and ritual impurity, as well as holiness and purity are explained within the Priestly context. The concept of holiness and imitatio dei, or human imitation of God, is explained."

to Lecture 9.
about this course.
the course syllabus.
Why is the course on the Will & Testament blog?

Comments

  • Comment number 1.


    I can understand that in Ireland you have other things connected with religion and ethics on your minds at the moment, but i DO hope you are not giving up on the O T Yale course. I have been lurking for some weeks, having accidently discovered this blog when you were three weeks into the course. I am throughly enjoying participating especially now that i have my copy of the jewish study bible, have caught up with the lectures and read all your comments. Now, my young friends tell me that lurking is ok, but it still feels like rudely evesdropping to me.

    So may i declare my presence by saying i am an american, brought up as a roman catholic. I have lived in England (in Berkshire, but i don't know those infamous b&b non-hosts) most of my adult life and have been a quaker for about 20 years. I am not nearly as learned as most of you seem to be - pretty much all i know of philosophy is from reading Sophie's World, and i am so i t phobic that i have only recently discovered that to interpret strange groups of excess punctuation, you need to tilt your head. (-; It has taken be the best part of a week to get registered to comment. i kept getting a webpage that told me i had to click on the link in the email, which being done took me back to the very same page!? Before i shut up and retire to the back of the class, could someone kindly tell me what asterixs *around phrases* or *words* mean. Is it a different sort of emphasis to JUST USING CAPS? And, has anyone found the other required reading on line? I am *very* pleased not to have to take the exams, but some of the reading sounds well worth a look, tho i have no access to an accademic library and can't afford to buy them all.

  • Comment number 2.

    An irish welcome, Fatfriend. I hope all views are welcome here as we all need to talk and ....listen... more. BTW I have no idea what the funny marks beside the words mean. Look forward to hearing what you have to say about these excellent lectures.

    Kind regards
    DK
    Anti thesist

  • Comment number 3.

    Looks like it's just a choice between bible study and C&W!
    Duh!

  • Comment number 4.


    Now Ally - who said you have to choose? I keep telling people there's a better way to think than either/or! Reading Kaufman while listening to Hugo might be just the thing to bring on an epiphany.

    Welcome Fatfriend. Glad you have joined us and made your presence known.

  • Comment number 5.


    FF - you asked about asterixs - I believe they are indeed an alternative means of adding emphasis, many people use them to indicate that the text so enclosed should be read as if it were italicised.

  • Comment number 6.

    Historically, *this would be a phrase in bold* while /this would be a phrase in italics/ and _this would be an underlined phrase_. Of course usage will vary with time and space.

  • Comment number 7.

    Welcome fatfriend. We'll have lecture 10 on the blog on Friday. This lecture is particularly interesting because the "holiness code" continues to figure in some contemporary debates about sexuality, food, culture, marriage, judicial punishment, etc., in both the US and the UK. I'll be interested to hear your views about attempts to translate the holiness teaching of Leviticus to contemporary issues.

  • Comment number 8.



    Hi Will

    Ref pubishment and Leviticus.. I once heard you highlight what you saw as the apparent contradiction between people who support the death penalty but oppose abortion. (I guess it might be argued that this view protects the innocent and punishes the guilty???).

    But what about the opposite view. Do you see any contradiction between the opinion that opposes the death penalty but supports abortion (punishing the innocent and protecting the guilty????)

    OT



  • Comment number 9.

    Hi William just glad you posted the lecture I started to get worried you had gone AWOL.I had watched it but miss the comments.An Englishman living in Dublin

  • Comment number 10.

    That Graham isn't me Graham. I haven't gone to Dublin. I've never been English. (I've French and Irsih blood apparently!)

    But glad the OT course is still going, I'm really enjoying it. And learning a lot. (And actually, I personally feel a bit stronger in my Evangelical convictions for it.)

    GV

  • Comment number 11.

    Thats correct I am another Graham surname Corcoran.I have been following every ones your for the last few weeks,so its good be in contact with you all.Its all so good have our minds stretched.Even though it can take us out of comfort zone.GC

  • Comment number 12.

    graham, welcome. Apologies for the late posting; but it's good to know you noticed! More on Friday.

  • Comment number 13.

    I found this lecture challenging. I did not enjoy it at all. I am struggling to identify the main points. Help!

    DK

  • Comment number 14.

    I am not the one to enlighten you, D K. i am very much struggling to get my head around the relationship between moral and ritual purity. so different from what i had understood judiasm and it's rules to be about.
    I first came across leviticus when jeremy hardy played my local comedy club. Declaring himself to be the campest straight commedian there is, he did an extended rift on how the book of the bible that condems homosexuality also forbids eating clams, wearing polyester, and - this one sticks in my mind - rules that if a man has sex with a donkey: kill the DONKEY!
    At the risk of setting off bluesberry (lecture 8 post2)on another epic, what strikes me about this lecture is what is not there. If we discount the notion that god dictated these books word for word to moses over 40 days, and he took it down without even the benefit of spellcheck, how did this strange, complex system evolve? Do we know anything about the development of the p source?

  • Comment number 15.

    Thank you for your comments, FF.

    Regards
    DK

  • Comment number 16.



    welcome FF!

    Dont worry that you dont know much philosophy, it never stopped the rest of us. As I understand it philsophy asks excellent questions about making sense of the world and stretches us in thinking about this, but it has never come to any real conclusions.

    :)

    You will soon find that W&T is an education in itself, so long as you have a bit of a thick skin and dont take anything too personally, ie the questions you ask and feedback you get on comments you post should make you think and reflect on your views...

    At least, that is what I have found.

    OT




  • Comment number 17.

    Thanks everyone for the welcome and information. O T, I will work on growing that thick skin, though I am getting the vibe that you may all go easy on me when I say something stupid, at least until you know me better.
    Does anyone want to discuss the course? I would like to hear some thoughts on how the P source evolved. and is it out of the question to refer back to lecture 8 and try to provoke a discussion on God as Pharoh's puppetmaster? I am facinated by the Prof's concept of a God who is working things out and making adjustments to the design as he/she goes along but where does this business of giving Moses and Aaron orders while (sometimes) controling Pharoh's reaction. What does that say about the concepts of evil and of free will in the Bible?

  • Comment number 18.


    FF - have read the lecture and hope to think about it and write about it over the weekend. I'm glad somebody wants to get discussion going again on this excellent course but I'm afraid I've scrambled my brain enough for tonight already so it's probably not entirely safe to post anything on purity just at the moment...

  • Comment number 19.



    Hi FF

    On reflection, if you consider the people from the no "room at the inn" story as "non-hosts" you probably will not need a thick skin at all here as you will fit right in.

    It is just folks like me who need to develop a thick skin on this blog as we tend to ask awkward and unpopular questions during such debates.

    :)

    OT

  • Comment number 20.




    BTW William

    ref posts 7 & 8

    Any chance of some feedback when you have a minute please?

    I cant help but remember, with a cheeky grin here, that you charged the conservative Christian regulars here about this course, asking them if they were afraid to join it.

    I'd have to agree with GV so far, I am not surprised, but everything this secular course has come up with so far as only strengthened my faith.


    On the other hand, as you invited me to join and volunteered to be my tutor, I have to once again ask you to live up to your responsibilities and respond to my question in post 8.

    You challenged us about being afraid to take a "secular" course on the bible, but to date it has been you who has been repeatedly shy about tackling difficult questions we have raised in tutorials.

    Your answers have been quite evasive. For example, we never did hear any comment on Prof Hayes' mistake in claiming that Adam is only a term for mankind and not also a proper name in Genesis.

    You've ignored that one to date tutor, so dont trouble yourself now.


    But what about post 8?

    You're not scared are you??

    ;-)


    Many thanks
    OT


    BTW FF, no need to get just *too* hung up on all the supposed documentary sources. If you look back you will see Prof Hayes confessed that there is no actual evidence to prove the theory is correct and that it is "guesswork".

    Oh and on final point FF, I expect that interest will fall off in the corse now because once you have destroyed the foundations of a house the rest soon caves in afterwards; that is why Genesis in particular is so "controversial" .

Ìý

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ iD

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ navigation

³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ © 2014 The ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.