It figures that the time I would fall three days behind in postings (not the readings, though - I've managed to do those each day...) would be the time when I come across some actually interesting stuff in Leviticus.
By way of quick recap before we dive in, here are some of the topics covered by these seven chapters:
- what to (and not to) eat
- childbirth
- loads on leprosy
- a bit more on health in general
- making up for stuff (atonement)
The laws of what to/not to eat are interesting, largely because they appear to be so arbitrary and a bit random. So things that chew cud are good, but only so long as they have split hooves. One or the other won't do, it's got to be both. I (along with just about everyone else I assume) knew about the no-pigs rule for kosher eating. I confess I didn't know that rabbits and rock badgers (shaphan in the NASB translation) were off the menu as well.
No word yet on the honey badger, although I've heard he's unlikely to care much...
The seafood menu is cause for head-scratching as well, and makes it entirely understandable that centuries of discussion followed delineating exactly what things were and weren't okay. For me, the "fins/scales=good, no fins/no scales=bad" set-up isn't necessarily specific. Lobster, etc, are obviously out, but what about the more borderline animals? Squid have fins. They're not fish fins, but they're still fins. Do they count? But octopi don't, so they'd be out, but really what's the difference between squid and octopi otherwise? To me, this one thing sort of does away with the idea that all dietary laws were based on hygienic considerations, since a squid's just as likely to go bad and kill you as an octopus.
What about stingrays? Those things are 90% fins, so they must count...
I'm getting off track.
---
Anyway, does anyone else think it's crazy that there's a different (longer) penalty period for women who give birth to baby girls than for those who have baby boys? Significantly longer. In a way, I'm glad we've come across this one pretty early on (stay with me...) because if this isn't pretty iron-clad proof that at least some of the Old Testament statutes are products of their ancient near-east culture and aren't stuff that we necessarily bother with today, I don't know what is. So, both in advance and retroactively, to all those people who said (and continue to say) that tattoos are wrong because it says so in the Old Testament laws: HA!
There are definitely still tattoos that are wrong, for a whole host of other reasons. Let's be clear on that point, though.
---
The leprosy chapters I found absolutely fascinating, actually. For starters, I'm now particularly curious as to the actual original understanding of the word itself (which, as we'll see, can also refer to houses, strangely enough) - specifically whether it was an actual, acute diagnosis, or if it was more of a catch-all term used to define a wide variety of skin-gunk that people contracted. I'm more convinced that I've been in the past that the latter is actually the case.
Also, houses that get leprosy, so that goes at least some of the way to showing (if you actually needed some sort of evidence for this) that historically people weren't as concerned with particular diagnoses, and were a lot more fast-and-loose with their medical terms.
As an aside, I can't be the only person that thinks "Leprous Houses" would be a killer name for a death metal band... AMIRIGHT?
---
Here we go - chapter 16 and more atonement stuff.
I should mention also that, buried in amidst all these legal statutes, etc, we actually did get some narrative. Two of Aaron's sons were killed by God for offering "strange fire" incense that God hadn't commanded them to (10:1-2).
Naturally, in this context, a sacrifice is in order to make amends, and Aaron is sent to collect a bull for his family's sin offering as well as a ram and a couple of goats. The goats are what struck me because I am (amongst the myriad kinds of nerd that I am) a word nerd.
Aaron is instructed to cast lots for the goats. One will be designated as the sacrifice to the Lord, and the other is the scapegoat.
Yeah, I read it two or three times, too. The scapegoat is the one that isn't sacrificed on account of someone screwing up. That's the one that (sweet merciful heavens, NO!) is basically just given its freedom to run wild into the countryside (oh... well alright then...). Sure, the broader implication here may be one of isolation and separation, but really? I'd love to trace the etymology of this and then invent some sort of time machine so I could physically go to the places where the changes in meaning happened and ask how they thought this goat got such an incredibly raw deal. Words are fun.
Anyway, it turns out that we're already well past the halfway mark of Leviticus. Not bad. Now, if I can only stay awake long enough at night to keep up my daily posting regimen...
No comments:
Post a Comment