I. Notice what she says in the first paragraph. "The only way in which pollution ideas make sense is in reference to a total structure of thought."
What Douglas is arguing for is a systematic and comprehensive explanation. What you have in Leviticus is a set of symbols that are linked together Ñ not just the food taboos, these are only a sub-set of a much broader symbolic system. We also know that the Book of Leviticus was written by the priestly class in ancient Israel. We must assume therefore that there is some underlying logic to this series of elaborate proscriptions, even if that logic is not immediately apparent to us. What we have to do is dig for that logic in the text.
II. Leviticus illustrates this point: that of "a total structure of thought."
Note the word "illustrate." An interpretation is not something you can prove or disprove; an interpretation's validity is a function of its coherence and internal integrity -- i.e., does it sound plausible?
[The only way to prove this interpretation is the right one is to get hold of the rabbis who drafted Leviticus, and ask them what they meant.]
To make her argument, Douglas begins by assuming that the ancient Israelites were logical, rational, people who thought systematically (even if the basis of the rationality is opaque to us today). What she has to do is to excavate the symbolic structure that underlies Leviticus.
In crafting an explanation for the food taboos in Leviticus, Douglas must first dispose of other explanations, and show why they are unsatisfactory. (6 pages)
Arguments to explain Leviticus fall into two main groups:
Prohibitions are arbitrary and irrational; their intent is to teach Israelites self-discipline. Thus it doesn't matter what you prohibit, people only have to follow the rules and avoid eating them. This explains the apparent lack of systematicity.
Prohibitions are allegories of virtue and vice. Teaches people moral rules (see quote from professor Stein on p. 60)
Douglas rejects these explanations because they deny any significance to the rules and are thus not interpretive at all. They "express bafflement in a learned way." The allegorical explanations fail because they are neither consistent nor comprehensive.
To keep Israelites from following foreign practices -- but this is not consistent either, because not all foreign practices were tabooed; how do you explain these?
A
GOOD INTERPRETATION MUST BE CONSISTENT AND COMPREHENSIVE.
If you are looking at a total system, then the same principle of explanation ought to apply to every aspect of that system.
DouglasÕ approach is entirely based on the text and tries to ferret out the system of thought that constructed these prohibitions. Her argument is that a close analysis of the text enables one to do this. (p. 63)
In this section of her essay (about 6 pages) she lays down the basis for her analysis: an explication of the Israelite concept of Holiness, which is fundamental to understanding the food taboos. Thus, her analysis must take into account all of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not just the food taboos.
START WITH THE TEXT. This is all the material you have to work with.
Read the relevant passage from Leviticus (11:44).
Each of the prohibitions is prefaced with the injunction to be holy; thus the concept of holiness is clearly associated with the prohibitions and must be understood. This seems to be the key term. It is associated with the concepts of clean and unclean. What do these concepts mean?
I.
What does it mean to be holy?
What Douglas does here is a common anthropological method: take a key term, something that is significant in some way, and explain what it means.
-- root meaning of separateness: keep the categories of creation distinct, they must not be mixed.
-- additionally, idea of wholeness and completeness -- the proper order must be maintained. There must be no contradiction between what appears to be and what is.
-- physically: thus, a priest must be a perfect man, one without physical blemish.
-- in social context (keep distinct the categories of creation).
Holiness is exemplified by completeness, by straightforwardness, dissembling or lying is not holy because it contradicts the principle that what seems to be ought to be.
Note that the ancient Israelites took their relationship to God very, very seriously; to be holy was important, in a way that secular people may find very hard to understand. And the Old Testament is of course the premier religious document, the word of God himself. What is being worked out here is one aspect of a total system of logic and thought; the idea of wholeness, for example, can explain why milk and meat should not be cooked together in Israelite culture; it's mixing two things ordained to be separate. Dietary rules thus develop the metaphor of holiness.
Why is it important to be Holy? Because from Holiness comes the blessing of God, and it is only through God's blessing that the affairs of men will prosper.
How do you obtain God's blessing? By keeping your covenant with him -- by being holy.
Leviticus is a road map to the religious on how to do this; also lays down the consequences of not doing it.
Thus, failing to observe God's word brings terrible danger.
To sum up:
"To be holy is to be whole, to be one; holiness is unity, integrity, perfection of the individual and of the kind. The dietary rules merely develop the metaphor of holiness on the same lines." p. 68
II. What does clean/unclean mean?
We have to determine what this means from the text. It occurs together with the concept of Holy; the two are linked. Unclean things are those things that do not conform to the natural order: things that are not whole or complete.
Thus, underlying principle of cleanness in animals is that they must conform fully to their proper class -- if it lives in the water, it must have fins and scales, so eels, which have neither, are an abomination.
Be careful of falling into the trap of naive realism.
Example of naive realism: Douglas' account of Professor Kramer, who lauds a Sumerian tablet from Nippur (3rd millennium BC) as showing evidence that the ancient Sumerians were aware of the importance of sterilizing medical equipment (Purity & Danger (Pelican Books, 1970) p. 43).
Because the word ÒpurifyÓ (as translated from the Sumerian) in the tablet is used in the context of a healing procedure; how do we know that purification does not mean sprinkling with holy water or reciting a spell? (p. 43-44)
(4-5 pages) -- This is the briefest part of the essay. She has already done the explanation -- she only needs to show you the basis on which this explanation fits the food taboos.
(1) No hybrids -- either in fields, herds or in clothes.
Deal with borderline cases: camel, pig, hyrax, hare -- because they lack one or another of the proper attributes (note that the food explicitly permitted are those that the Israelites, as pastoralists, already raised; these are the model for appropriate food -- recall my example of rice in South Asia).
(2) Based on the order of creation:
Earth, Water and Firmament -- each has its proper form of animal life. Those animals that are tabooed are those that do not conform to this order.
Example: any creature which has two legs and two hands and goes on all fours like a quadruped is unclean (note how this feature can be lost if you translate the Hebrew word as paws rather than hands).
Why would you translate it as paws? Because ÒpawsÓ makes cultural sense; animals don't have hands.