Moshe Kline

The Literary Structure of Leviticus

 Abstract

Mary Douglas argues in Leviticus as Literature that "Bible students have to choose between accepting the muddle made by imposing a Western linear reading upon an archaic text, or trying to read the book through its own literary conventions.” She gives many examples of how to read a text “through its own literary conventions,” as well as a broad overview in the form of an analogical reading. In this paper, I substantiate Douglas’ approach by systematically defining the twenty-two literary units that compose Leviticus, as well as the larger structure that connects them. Each of the twenty-two units has a similar non-linear structure that can be viewed as a table. The inclusive structure of Leviticus is composed of three concentric arrays of units, with Lev 19 at the focus. Each array has a common organizing element. The outermost array is place-oriented; the middle array is time-oriented; the inner array is person-oriented. The focus, chapter 19, is holiness. The image created by this arrangement is a holy core that emanates outwards through successive arrays of person, time and place. This structure can be interpreted as an analogical representation of the Tabernacle with chapter 19 parallel to the Ark of the Covenant, the inner array the Holy of Holies, the middle array the Holy Place, and the outer array the courtyard. The experience of reading Leviticus, according to this analogy, places the reader in a position analogous to the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. Like the High Priest, the reader follows the inner path to holiness at the center of the book, passing through the courtyard and the Holy Place to the Holy of Holies. This path is reversed in the second half as the reader-High Priest returns to society when exiting the Tabernacle. 

Introduction

Another possibility again [for explaining the source of Leviticus] is suggested by the studied elegance and powerfully contrived structure. A literary composition that is so impressive could suggest that writing a theological treatise was the full achievement. The skeptical likelihood that the book is a beautiful fantasy, a vision of a life that never was, hangs heavily over the interpretation.[1]

1.                       Like an anthropologist cutting through the bush to discover a lost civilization, Mary Douglas has opened up a new path for Biblical research, through the jungle of source criticism. In the first four chapters of Leviticus as Literature she demonstrates that "Bible students have to choose between accepting the muddle made by imposing a Western linear reading upon an archaic text, or trying to read the book through its own literary conventions.” [2] She argues for an "analogical" reading of Leviticus most convincingly, displaying an extraordinarily far-reaching scholarship. Doubtless, such a reading will lead to places yet to be explored and theories that will conflict with the currently accepted "muddle".

2.                       In the last three chapters of Leviticus as Literature (10-12), Douglas offers her own analogical overview of the whole of Leviticus, comparing it to the structure of the Tabernacle. Intuitively, the imagery fits. The redactor of Leviticus could not have found a more appropriate structural analogy than the Tabernacle. This compelling analogy invites further exploration of the structure of Leviticus. Douglas herself has stated the ground rule for structural analysis: "Everything depends on how clearly the units of structure are identified."[3] She explains the importance of clearly defined units in her book on Numbers: "If the analyst can manage not to take responsibility either for selecting the units of structure, or for the principles of relationship between the units of the text, the analysis of the structure will be more secure. The safeguard is to have some principle of selection that makes the interpretation a work of discovery, not of creation."[4] In this paper, I will attempt to expand Douglas' argument with a clear definition of the units of structure that make the interpretation of Leviticus a work of discovery. Based on these units, I will offer a modification of her analogical reading.

The Literary Units

3.                       Leviticus contains twenty-two well-defined literary units, whereas printed Bibles divide the book into twenty-seven chapters. To avoid confusion, I will refer to my units as Units and mark them with Roman numerals. Nearly all of the discrepancies are found in the first ten chapters, which reduce to four Units. Unit I includes chapters 1-3, II includes 4-5, III spans 6-7, and IV covers 8-10. The first three Units describe different aspects of the sacrificial system. The fourth contains an extended narrative described by Milgrom as "the inauguration of the cult.”[5] Another place where the division by chapters must be modified is chapter 22. I read this chapter as two Units, consisting of verses 1-25 and 26-33, respectively. This division is based on the subject matter of the two Units. Once we have identified 22:26-33 as a separate Unit, its similarity to chapter 12 becomes apparent. Both consist of just eight verses, containing birth, seven days after birth, the eighth day, and sacrifice. The similarity between these two Units will play an important role in identifying the overall structure. A minor adjustment has to be made between chapters 13 and 14. While they remain two literary Units, the end of chapter 13, verses 47-59 are properly part of the Unit that includes chapter 14.

4.                       As recommended by Douglas, the identification of the literary Units is based upon “some principle of selection that makes the interpretation a work of discovery, not of creation.” The principle of selection that I have employed to identify the Units is itself a discovery. Each of the Units has its own well-defined structure. I have defined each Unit as such, only after first identifying its internal structure. At this point, it may sound as if we are looking at a potential regressio ad infinitum. I have proposed identifying the structure of Leviticus by identifying its Units. Now I claim that each of these Units has its own structure. Moreover, I will further state that the structure of each Unit is defined in turn by the structure of its components! In order to avoid the regression, I will introduce a form of “literary calculus.”

5.                       Leviticus displays level upon level of organization in a “powerfully contrived structure.”[6] Therefore, it is not composed of a single set of units, but rather a set of sets. Each level of organization is based upon its own set of units. In order to speak about “the structure of Leviticus,” we must have an understanding of several levels of order and the set of units associated with each level. Once we have established the levels of organization, we can apply the “literary calculus” to define the most useful set of parameters for describing the overall structure of Leviticus.

6.                       As I have mentioned, on one level Leviticus divides into twenty-two structurally similar Units. I will refer to the internal organization of these Units as the microstructures of Leviticus, and the arrangement of the Units together as the macrostructure. The key to applying Douglas’ “discovery” method to Leviticus appeared when I discovered that the macrostructure employs the same rules of organization as the microstructures. The development of a common set of rules for these two levels of structure is the result of an analytic process that I have playfully termed “literary calculus.” The similarity to the true calculus is found in the need to postulate a smallest quantum, or in textual terms, “the prime pericope.” This is the smallest block of text which is structurally significant. Like a prime number, it can not be divided into factors. I will explain now in basic outline just how these prime pericopes are organized in six levels of ascending complexity. For consistency with later sections of this article, I will refer to some groups of textual elements as “rows” and “tables”. I will explain the significance of these terms after I present all six levels of order.

The Levels of Order

a. Prime Pericope

b. Row of Prime Pericopes (dyads or triads)

or

c. Table of Prime Pericopes: Unit

7.                        The first three levels of order are illustrated above, beginning with the prime pericope (a). The second level of organization (b) connects two or three prime pericopes in a set, or row. All of the prime pericopes combine with one or two other consecutive pericopes to form either a dyad or a triad. The next level of order (c) combines consecutive rows of pericopes in tables. This is the level which I have termed Units. Each Unit is made up of dyad-rows or triad-rows. Of the twenty-two Units, only two combine both dyads and triads within the same Unit. The other twenty are all homogenous, eleven containing only triads and nine only dyads. The arrangement of the different types of Units is one of the objective criteria for defining the structure. For example, the first three Units all consist exclusively of triads, while the next three consist exclusively of dyads. We will now see how the macrostructure, the arrangement of Units, reflects the microstructure, the structure of a single Unit.

c. Unit

d. Row of Units

e. Table of Units