The Literary Structure of Leviticus

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]

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".

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

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.

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.”

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.

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

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

The Units are to the macrostructure as the “prime pericopes” are to the microstructure. Just as the prime pericopes (a) of the microstructure form rows (b), so too do the Units (c) combine to form rows of Units (d) in the macrostructure. One difference between the rows of consecutive prime pericopes (b) and the rows of consecutive Units (d) is that the Unit-rows are all triads, while the pericope-rows are divided between triads and dyads. For clarity, I will refer to the Unit-rows as Unit-triads. The Unit-triad (d) combines with two more Unit-triads to create a table of Unit-triads containing three Unit-triads (e).

We can now see that the organization of the macrostructure in levels c-e precisely reflects the organization of the microstructure in levels a-c. There is one more level of order (f) to take into account in order to grasp the overall plan of Leviticus. The largest structure in the book is based on two nine Unit tables. The two tables form an introversion around chapter 19, as the following diagram illustrates:

f. The nineteen-Unit introversion

This structure accounts for nineteen of the twenty-two Units. The three remaining Units are not part of the introversion. Interestingly, the three “superfluous” Units all deal exclusively with impurities. It is as if the redactor had stated that the symmetrical structure is pure, and that the asymmetry created by the addition of the Units on impurities makes the structure itself impure. The reader, like the priest, must remove the impure from the camp (structure) in order maintain its purity. I will develop this point towards the end of this article when discussing my analogical reading of Leviticus.

Multiple Contexts

We have now completed the preliminary survey of the six levels of order that are utilized to create the structure of Leviticus. Altogether, each prime pericope combines with other pericopes to form five additional levels of order (b-f). Each level of order creates a new context within which a given pericope has to be understood. It follows, that the redactor formulated and honed each pericope to function within multiple structural contexts. Any given term within the pericope can serve to connect the pericope with other pericopes on any of the levels of order; multiple levels of organization create multiple contexts. Douglas’ was quite accurate in describing Leviticus as having a “powerfully contrived structure.”[7] I will explain now two more structural contexts in the tables of levels (c) and (e).

Tables

The Units of the microstructure (c) and the tables of the macrostructure (e) share a formal similarity; they can both be read as tables. I will illustrate this point by means of the following diagram.

Table 1. Literary Table

The rows of the above table represent consecutive blocks of text (as indicated by the numbers in parentheses) and are marked by consecutive letters, א-ג. The columns are marked as L(eft) M(iddle) and R(ight). When the text is arranged in this format, consistencies appear in the columns as well as in the rows. The content of each prime pericope in a Unit (c), as well as the content of each Unit in a table of Units (e), is a function of the intersection of two planning lines, its row and column. The compound labels, such as אL, indicate that the specific element, prime pericope or Unit, is a compound composed of the “א” concept which includes אL, אM and אR, and the “L” concept, which includes אL, בL and גL. In this manner, the tables can be seen as “conceptual space”, Cartesian coordinate systems in which each point (element of a table) is a function of the intersection of two concepts, its column and row.

The columns of the Units (c) and the columns of the tables of Units (e) thus create two more structural contexts. This brings the total number of structural contexts to seven: levels (b)-(f) plus the columns of the two levels of tables. The rows of the tables are levels (b) and (d). A full analysis of the structure of Leviticus should include a reading of each of the twenty-two Units as a table. However, due to constraints of space, I will discuss only the tables of level (e).

Catalog of Units

In order to facilitate the discussion of the overall structure of Leviticus, I will first present a brief catalog of the twenty-two Units. I have indicated in the catalog that all of the Units except XIII form Unit-triads (level d) and have marked these triads A-G in order to make it easier to follow the next sections of this article. The catalog consists of a structural outline of each of the twenty-two Units indicating the verses of each prime pericope, a brief heading to each Unit, and a short descriptions of each pericope-row. I tried to follow Milgrom’s section headings as far as possible. Where I changed his heading or added a description, I indicated this by brackets. These outlines should prove useful for anyone desiring to investigate the Units as self-contained textual elements. The complete formatted Hebrew text can be downloaded at http://chaver.com/Torah/StructuredLeviticus.htm.

The Twenty-Two Units

Unit-triad A: The Sacrificial System -  all pericope rows triads

I (1-3) Three Spontaneously Motivated Private Sacrifices

II (4-5) Sacrifices Required for Expiation

III (6-7) Administrative Order

Unit-triad B – all pericope rows dyads

IV (8-10) Inauguration of the Cult and Aftermath

V (11) Diet Laws

VI (12) Childbirth

Unit-triad C: Impurities and Purification

VII (13:1-46) [Impurity from] Scale Disease

VIII (13:47 - 14:57) Purification

IX (15) Genital Discharges

Unit-triad D – all pericope rows triads

X (16) Day of Purgation

XI (17) The Slaughter and Consumption of Meat

XII (18) Illicit Sexual Practices

Focal Unit

XIII (19) Holiness

This Unit has a unique structure, which mirrors the structure of the whole book. It is divided into two blocks, of four pairs and three pairs respectively, by a unique triad (19:19b-25). This mirrors the division of the book into seven Unit-triads, divided into blocks of four Unit-triads (A-D) and three Unit-triads (E-G) by the unique Unit XIII. This Unit is the subject of an article which can be seen in draft at The Stone Tablets of Leviticus 19.

Unit-triad E – all pericope rows triads

XIV (20) Penalties for Molek Worship, Necromancy, and Sexual Offenses

XV (21) Instructions for the Priests

XVI (22:1-25) [Sanctified Objects]

Unit-triad F – all pericope rows dyads

XVII (22:26-33) [Animal Birth]

XVIII (23) The Holiday Calendar

XIX (24) Tabernacle Oil and Bread; The Case of Blasphemy

Unit-triad G: Redemption

XX (25) Jubilee

XXI (26) Blessings Curses and the Recall of the Covenant

XXII (27) Consecrations and their Redemption

The sizes of pericope-rows (b) used in the Unit-triads create a recurring pattern. Unit-triad A contains only triads in its pericope-rows; Unit-triad B contains only dyad pericope-rows; and Unit-triad C contains both dyad and triad pericope-rows. This pattern is repeated in Unit-triads E-G: E contains only triads, F only dyads and G both types of pericope-rows.

The Holy Puzzle

Once the Units have been identified, Leviticus looks like a puzzle spread out on the table waiting to be put together. It has well defined parts that seem to lack a thematic or narrative thread. Still, it is not totally lacking in structural hints. The division of the first seven chapters as the appear in the opening Unit-triad (A) is generally accepted. The closing Unit-triad (G) has already been identified by others, including Douglas and Milgrom, “whereas Lev 25 and 27 speak of Israel’s redemptive responsibility, Lev 26 focuses on YHWH’s responsibility, by virtue of the covenant, to redeem Israel.”[8]   Surely there must be a correlation between XII (18) and XIV (20), both of which contain extensive lists of forbidden sexual relations. Also, the similarities in VI (12) and XVII (22:26-33) could point to a structural link between them. So too, we can expect there to be a formal connection between the two narratives, IV and XIX.

This concludes the introduction. The remainder of this article has three parts. First, I will outline the structure of the book of Leviticus based on the twenty-two Units. Afterwards I will outline the process of solving the puzzle, the process that leads to the discovery of Leviticus' formal structure. Finally, I will briefly consider the analogical reading inherent in the structure. I will begin now with an outline of the structure that will be developed during the analysis.

Part 1: An Overview of the Structure

Table 2.  Structural Outline of Leviticus

The outline above shows how the Units group into seven triads and one singular Unit, XIII. The analogical structure does not include Unit-triad (C), which contains only material on impurities. The six remaining Unit-triads compose the two tables of Units in level (e) and combine to form the level (f) inversion. The two dimensional nature of the tables is based on a consistent relationship between the Units of each Unit-triad. In A, B, and D, the first Unit of each Unit-triad can be described as “oriented” towards God, as opposed to the third Unit which is oriented towards people. The middle Unit of these Unit-triads contains material indicating an interaction between God and people. For example, in Unit-triad A, Unit I is God-oriented, using the phrase “to the Lord” over twenty times. Unit III, on the other hand, is people oriented, focusing on priestly prebends. The middle Unit, II, demonstrates the connection between people who sin and God who provides the means for expiation. The consistency of this three-part arrangement leads to reading Unit-triads A, B, and D as a table in which the columns have the values marked in the following illustration.

Table 3. The Orientation of the Units in the First Unit-Table

The Units in Unit-triads E-F have a similar relationship, but the order is reversed.

Table 4. The Orientation of the Units in the Second Unit-Table

The reversed orientation in the second Unit-table is one of the reasons that I refer to the structure that combines the two tables as an “inversion”. The other components of the inversion are inverted content parallels, chiasms, between Unit-triads A and G, B and F, and D and E. Each of these pairs of Unit-triads creates a structural element that I will call an “array”. The two Unit-triads of each array are chiastic. The array is yet another structural context, making a total of eight with the five hierarchical levels (b-f) and the columns of the two levels of tables (c and e). The following table demonstrates how the Unit-triads will be connected in the analogical reading.

Table 5. Overview of the Analogical Structure of Leviticus