The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures ISSN 1203-1542 http.docx

The Journal of Hebrew
Scriptures
ISSN 1203-1542
http://www.jhsonline.org and
http://purl.org/jhs
Articles in JHS are being indexed in the ATLA
Religion Database, RAMBI, and BiBIL. Their
abstracts appear in Religious and Theological
Abstracts. The journal is archived by Library and
Archives Canada and is accessible for consultation
and research at the Electronic Collection site
maintained by Library and Archives Canada (for a
direct link, click here).
VOLUME 8, ARTICLE 8
RONALD HENDEL,
MARY DOUGLAS AND ANTHROPOLOGICAL MODERNISM
http://www.jhsonline.org/
http://purl.org/jhs
http://jnul.huji.ac.il/rambi/
https://wwwdbunil.unil.ch/bibil/bi/en/bibilhome.html
http://collectionscanada.ca/electroniccollection/003008-200-
e.html

http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/journal_hebrew/index.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2008.v8.a8
JOURNAL OF HEBREW SCRIPTURES
2
MARY DOUGLAS AND
ANTHROPOLOGICAL MODERNISM
RONALD HENDEL
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
INTRODUCTION
Mary Douglas was one of the most brilliant and wide-ranging
scholars of
the last half-century, a period during which her subject�—
cultural
anthropology�—became an essential intellectual field. Among
the many
scholarly disciplines that she participated in and influenced, she
had a
longstanding engagement with scholarship of the Hebrew Bible.
Although
she was keenly aware of her lack of linguistic skills in her
biblical work, her
anthropological intelligence enabled her do path-breaking work
in the study
of biblical ritual, religion, and society. In a revealing essay
titled �“Why I
Have to Learn Hebrew,�” she describes the motives for her
biblical studies:
My personal project in the study of the Bible is to bring

anthropology to
bear on the sources of our own civilization. This is in itself
enough of an
explanation for having to learn Hebrew. But there is more. In
pre-
Enlightenment Europe, other religions were condemned as false,
even
as evil; the Enlightenment changed the condemnation to
irrational
superstition. Neither stance was conducive to understanding.
The
practice of anthropology has been to provide a critical, humane,
and
sensitive interpretation of other religions.1
As she observes, the anthropological study of biblical religion
involves
a twofold strategy. First, we must approach biblical religion in
the same way
that anthropologists approach �“other religions,�” which is to
say as an
informed participant-observer. This stance involves a balance
between
critical distance and cultural empathy. A second step�—really a
corollary of
the first�—is to critique our own Western preconceptions about
religion, in
order to transcend the reductive dichotomies of revealed versus
false
religion or reason versus superstition. Ironically, in order to
achieve �“a
critical, humane, and sensitive interpretation�” of biblical
religion, we must
step aside from the biblical evaluation of �“other religions,�”
and approach
biblical religion as itself an �“exotic�” religion, a world that is

both familiar
and new.
In many respects this anthropological approach is a refinement
of the
critical method in biblical studies developed by Spinoza,
Herder, and others,
which yielded what Jonathan Sheehan calls �“the cultural
Bible.�”2 In
Spinoza�’s terms, this method addresses the Bible�’s meanings
within its own
semantic and cultural horizons, and prescinds from theological
judgments
of truth and falsity.3 In Herder�’s terms, it approaches biblical
culture by
3
means of participatory empathy (Einfühlung), bracketing our
own cultural
predispositions to the extent possible, and respecting the
authenticity of its
native structures of meaning.4
In other words, Mary Douglas�’s anthropology does not present
a
wholly new method, but is a sophisticated and reflective
development of
the same critical method from which modern biblical studies
arose. It is not
surprising, therefore, that pioneers such as Herder and

Robertson Smith
were important figures in both biblical studies and cultural
anthropology.
Mary Douglas is a successor to these scholars, who brought to
biblical
studies an anthropological vision. In the following I will try to
sketch the
type of anthropological vision that she brought to bear, its
intellectual
backdrop, and a perspicuous example of her work on the Bible.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL MODERNISM
In Mary Douglas: An Intellectual Biography, Richard Fardon
describes Douglas�’s
oeuvre as �“a classic expression of British anthropological
modernism.�”5
Anthropological modernism is shorthand for the dominant
movement in
British anthropology from roughly the 1920�’s to the 1980�’s.
This movement
was founded by Bronislaw Malinowski, professor at the London
School of
Economics, who championed the value of intensive fieldwork
and
�“participant-observation,�” and by A. R. Radcliffe-Brown,
professor at
Oxford, who melded Émile Durkheim�’s theoretical sociology
into a
working model of �“functionalism,�” which focused on how
social
phenomena and practices mesh to create a coherent social
system. As Adam
Kuper describes this confluence of strategies and ideas:
Malinowski brought a new realism to social anthropology, with
his lively

awareness of the flesh-and-blood interests behind custom, and
his
radically new mode of observation. Radcliffe-Brown introduced
the
intellectual discipline of French sociology, and constructed a
more
rigorous battery of concepts to order the ethnographic
materials.6
An important strand of anthropological modernism is the
turning away
from evolutionary theories of human culture, which had, in
good Victorian
fashion, produced triumphal narratives of human ascent from
primitive
superstition to modern Western science. There are many reasons
for the
turn away from evolutionary theory, not least the devastations
of World
War I, which battered common faith in cultural evolution and
progress.
Modernism in general is characterized by a turn away from
naive
evolutionism and toward a cross-cultural examination of the
human
condition. Part of the stimulus was the dissemination of the art
and
literature of non-Western cultures�—consider Picasso�’s
fascination with the
abstractions of ancient and tribal art, or Eliot�’s and Pound�’s
interest in
Asian literature�—which raised awareness of the complexity of
other
cultures.
Anthropological modernism shares its intellectual horizons with

other
modernisms. The distinctive features of literary modernism are
brilliantly
described by Erich Auerbach in his classic study, Mimesis.7 He
observes a
4
shift from the narration of great events and heroic protagonists
to a focus
on mundane, everyday events, which in their minute details are
revelatory of
universal human conditions.
This shift in emphasis expresses something that we might call a
transfer
of confidence: the great exterior turning points and blows of
fate are
granted less importance; they are credited with less power of
yielding
decisive information concerning the subject; on the other hand
there is
confidence that in any random fragment plucked from the
course of a
life at any time the totality of its fate is contained and can be
portrayed.
There is greater confidence in syntheses gained through full
exploitation
of an everyday occurrence than in a chronologically well-

ordered total
treatment which accompanies the subject from beginning to end,
attempts not to omit anything externally important, and
emphasizes the
great turning points of destiny.8
In other words, a large-scale and chronologically ordered
realism gives way
to a fragmented and subjective modernism, a messy and
quizzical version of
realism, which focuses on everyday events and details, and
ordinary,
unheroic protagonists. This is also the move of anthropological
modernism,
which turned away from great meta-narratives of cultural ascent
and turned
to micro-narratives of everyday events and cultural habits, yet
always with
an eye to reveal the fundamental and the universal in human
culture.
Auerbach further unpacks the implications of the modernist
engagement with everyday events and their link with the
universal,
commenting on a mundane yet revelatory moment in Virginia
Wolff�’s To the
Lighthouse:
[W]hat happens in that moment [while Mrs. Ramsey is
measuring a
stocking] ... concerns in a very personal way the individuals
who live in
it, but it also (and for that very reason) concerns the elementary
things
which men in general have in common. It is precisely the
random

moment which is comparatively independent of the
controversial and
unstable orders over which men fight and despair; it passes
unaffected
by them, as daily life. The more it is exploited, the more the
elementary
things which our lives have in common come to light.9
This search for the universal in the particular�—in the
mundane and
everyday events that are largely unaffected by the vicissitudes
of public
politics and controversy�—lies at the heart of anthropological
modernism as
well as literary. For Virginia Wolff, the scene of a woman
measuring a
stocking can be revelatory. For Mary Douglas, a joke or a meal
can be a
revelatory event or, in her friend Victor Turner�’s words, a
social drama, in
which �“the elementary things which our lives have in common
come to
light.�”
According to this modernist insight, the deep forms of human
life and
culture�—whether of a particular culture or culture in
general�—are best
pursued by teasing out the implications and connections of
everyday,
particular events, rather than the more famous unique events of
political or

5
public life. From this modernist insight, the historian Fernand
Braudel
developed his research program which emphasized the relatively
unchanging habits and conditions of the longue durée, rather
than restricting
one�’s focus to the unique events of l�’histoire événementielle
(�“event-history�”).
The habits of everyday human practices are the preferred scope
of
modernist inquiry, for they open the path to understanding the
complex
relationship between the universal and the particular. This is the
nexus that
enables us to relate in �“a critical, humane, and sensitive�”
way (in Mary
Douglas�’s words) with other peoples and cultures, and with
our own
cultural and religious past. The philosophical imperative to
�“know thyself�”
now involves knowledge of everyday habits and mundane
practices, both in
exotic cultures and our own. As Auerbach observes, in
modernism this
cross-cultural impulse results in a cultural universalism in
which �“there are
no longer even exotic peoples,�”10 since the others�—seen in
their
particularity, not in abstract caricature�—are now recognizably
like us.
DOUGLAS AND DURKHEIM
As mentioned above, anthropological modernism took a good

deal of its
intellectual capital from the pioneering work of Émile
Durkheim.
Durkheim, the scion of an eminent lineage of French rabbis,
became a
secular rationalist and a founder of modern sociology.11
Although
Durkheim�’s writings maintain a wavering commitment to
evolutionary
theories of culture, many of the strategies and insights of
anthropological
modernism are represented, at least germinally, in his work,
such as the
view of society as a functional system and, perhaps most
importantly, the
embeddedness of cognitive and moral categories in social life.
(I would note
that much of what we call postmodernism also derives from
aspects of
Durkheim�’s work, particularly his emphasis on the social
construction of�—
and constraints upon�—our systems of knowledge.12)
Mary Douglas describes Durkheim as one of the great modern
discoverers of �“the secret places of the mind.�”13 Like Marx
and Freud,
Durkheim showed that we are not entirely who we think we are,
that we are
shaped by forces beyond our conscious knowledge and will.
This is a type
of modernist insight, revealing a reality shaped by non-rational
and
unconscious forces, and uncovering a dimension of our selves
and motives
that is hidden from ordinary awareness.

Douglas avers, however, that Durkheim flinched from pursuing
the
implications of his discovery of the social embeddedness of
cognitive and
moral categories. He held that primitive tribal cultures, united
by
�“mechanical solidarity�” (i.e., characterized by small size
and nested social
segments) are deeply shaped by social forces, which yield a
shared collective
consciousness and conscience. In contrast, modern Western
cultures, united
by a looser and more differentiated �“organic solidarity�”
(i.e., characterized
by a division of labor and greater population) are relatively
immune to such
forces, enabling the flourishing of individual thought.
(Durkheim brilliantly
argued that the modern concept of the individual is a distinctive
outcome of
6
organic solidarity.)14 As such, he exempted our culture from
the
implications of his analysis of simpler �“primitive�” cultures.
Douglas compares the impact of Durkheim�’s truncated theory
with the

impact of the other theorists:
Marx and Freud were not sanguine when they unveiled the
secret places
of the mind. Marx, when he showed ideology for a flimsy
justification of
control, shook the great chancelleries. The scene of anguished
hate and
fear which Freud exposed to view was just as alarming at a
more
intimate level. The first looked to a long-span historical
determination
of political forms and the second to a short-span determination
of the
emotions in family life. Between these two, another
intermediate span is
necessary that Durkheim�’s insights were ready to supply: the
social
determination of culture. It should have become the central
critical task
of philosophy in this century to integrate these three basic
approaches.15
But since Durkheim exempted modern Western culture from the
social
entanglements of thought and practice that he found in primitive
cultures,
he authorized cultural anthropology to focus on �“exotic�” and
�“primitive�”
non-Western societies, and not to turn the anthropological gaze
upon
ourselves.
Mary Douglas, more than any other modern anthropologist,
explicitly
revoked Durkheim�’s exemption for modern Western societies

from
anthropological study. She argued that our thoughts, habits, and
categories
are also entangled in our social environments, in ways of which
we are
largely unaware. Douglas described this dimension of culture in
various
ways�—as �“implicit knowledge,�” �“cultural bias,�” or
�“thought-styles�”�—and
regarded it as the task of anthropological investigation to show
how
modern lives are shot through with practices, commitments, and
habits of
thought that are shaped by our social environments. In other
words, our
�“forms of social life�” and our �“forms of moral judgment�”
are deeply
interrelated, each supporting and ratifying the other, without
our conscious
awareness that this is so. This is the implication of
Durkheim�’s great
discovery, which Mary Douglas has developed in various
areas�—in
economics, risk theory, and even biblical studies. In so doing,
she took on
the delicate task of critiquing one�’s own cultural bias, the
social
environment of one�’s own commitments.
This is a high-wire act, which requires empathy and critical
distance
regarding one�’s own social engagements and cognitive
situation. But this is
a modernist dilemma that no one can escape, even�—or
especially�—the
postmodernists among us, who embrace the cultural politics of

all
knowledge. We are each implicated in our own inquiries�—for
example, in
the study of the Bible, which is our own heritage. This is a
Janus-faced
inquiry, for as we study particular cultures, we are
simultaneously
confronting the social forces that shape our own thought,
thereby entering
a labyrinthine and mirrored inquiry. The results�—as Durkheim
and Douglas
would agree�—will always be provisional, but it is an inquiry
well worth the
risk.
7
Although Douglas consistently viewed her work as a
development of
Durkheim�’s sociological project, in one important respect she
diverged
from his basic understanding of the social embeddedness of
religious
thought. Durkheim, as a good rationalist, viewed religion as a
surplus or
supplement added to the real world, originating as a projection
of social
needs and goods. He writes:
[U]pon the real world where profane life is lived, [man]
superimposes

another that, in a sense, exists only in his thought, but one to
which he
ascribes a higher kind of dignity than he ascribes to the real
world of
profane life. In two respects, then, this other world is an ideal
one.16
The sacred is an ideal world in the sense of its moral perfection
and in its
ultimate fictiveness. Religion, therefore, is a cognitive and
performative
supplement to the real world, even as it performs decisive
functions in this
world. In contrast, Mary Douglas, as a practicing Catholic,
viewed the
sacred as a supplement to the profane world that is found as
well as made. It
is part and parcel of the real world, yet�—and this is the key
point�—what is
found is always conditioned by one�’s implicit knowledge and
cultural bias.
The sacred, like other aspects of reality, is perceived through
the medium of
human consciousness and the social forms that condition our
consciousness. The difference between Durkheim, a secular
Jew, and
Douglas, a practicing Catholic, has to do with the etiology of
religion, and
implicates their own social environments. But irrespective of
the origin of
religion�—which modernism tends to eschew as the province of
outdated
evolutionary theories or as sheer speculation�—there is
continuity of
anthropological method and of the central insight of the social
entanglement of our thoughts and habits.

THE ABOMINABLE PIG
Let us consider the implications of anthropological modernism
in Mary
Douglas�’s work on the Bible. In her famous study of the
biblical dietary
prohibitions (in Purity and Danger), she makes an essential
modernist move
in rejecting the older evolutionary model in which irrational
magic
(including ritual) belongs to the primitive stages of humanity,
contrasted
with the sacramental theology of modern Western (viz.
Protestant) religion,
which belongs to a more advanced stage of reason and morality.
She
confutes this dichotomy by showing that ritual has its reasons
too, which
are not at all irrational, and that modern religion too has
symbolic actions;
indeed �“it is impossible to have social relations without
symbolic acts.�”17
Consider the pig taboo, a famous detail in the dietary laws of
Leviticus
11.18 Douglas first shows how various medieval and modern
interpretations
of this ritual detail are spurious, because they are ad hoc and
divorced from
the wider realities of the cultural system. She argues that this is
neither an
irrational superstition (in Protestant theological terms, a �“dead
work�”), nor
a moral symbol (the pig as filthy or evil or an allegory of
slothfulness), nor
an instance of primitive medicine (avoidance of trichinosis). 19

Rather than
8
accepting these piecemeal explanations, she takes seriously the
details and
context of the ritual instruction. The text says:
These you shall not eat, apart from those that chew the cud and
have
(cloven) hooves: .... the pig, for it has hooves which are cloven,
but it
does not chew the cud�—it is unclean for you. (Lev 11:4,7)
These are ordinary, mundane-seeming details, but like a good
modernist,
Douglas traces the larger implications of the ordinary to unfold
the
conceptual world that it implies. She argues in good
anthropological fashion
that the pig taboo is part of a larger cultural system:
Defilement is never an isolated event. It cannot occur except in
view of
a systematic ordering of ideas. Hence any piecemeal
interpretation of
the pollution rules of another culture is bound to fail. For the
only way
in which pollution ideas make sense is in reference to a total

structure of
thought.20
In this instance, she argues, �“When something is firmly
classed as
anomalous the outline of the set in which it is not a member is
clarified.�”21
What is the set that the pig taboo and the allied taboos on
camel, rock
badger, and rabbit (Lev 11:4�–6) clarify? The set in which they
are not
members is the land animals permitted for Israel�’s food�—
animals which
chew the cud and have cloven hooves (viz. cattle, sheep, goats,
and the
antelope family). The animals explicitly listed as excluded each
have one of
the two traits, but lack the other, so they mark a red line around
the
category of permitted cuisine. The reason the pig is singled out,
along with
the other three prohibited animals, is that these are borderline
cases,
pointing to the �“cloven-hoofed, cud-chewing ungulates
[which] are the
model of the proper kind of food.�”22
Why should these animals constitute a model of proper cuisine?
Douglas observes (after Purity and Danger) that the category of
land animals
permitted for Israel�’s food maps very closely onto the
category of the land
animals permitted for sacrifice to God (with the further
qualification that
sacrificial animals must be unblemished and domestic), setting

up an
analogy between God and Israel:
permitted for God�’s altar :: permitted for Israel�’s table
As Douglas notes, �“a very strong analogy between table and
altar stares us
in the face.�”23 This analogy between table and altar �“invests
the individual
meal with additional meaning.�”24
Drawing out the consequences of this analogy, Douglas finds
that a
number of features of the Israelite conceptual world are
implicitly encoded
into this food symbolism, including the following hierarchies:25
geography: holy space (altar)
profane space (Israelite table)
foreign space (foreign table, where all animals are permitted)
people: holy people (priests, who officiate at the altar)
profane people (all other Israelites)
foreign people (outside of system of holy/profane)
9
cosmic domains and their denizens:
land, with land animals
water, with water animals
sky, with sky animals
In other words, the prohibition of certain animals calls into play

the
structure of the created cosmos (land, water, sky, see Genesis
1), the
distinctions and relationship between God, Israel, and other
humans, and
the divisions of holy and profane persons. This latter distinction
also
implicitly asserts the religious authority of the priests, who�—
not
surprisingly�—are the authors of Leviticus 11 and who
administer its laws
and practices. Distinctions of cosmos, divinity, ethnicity, and
religious
authority�—of knowledge and power�—are articulated within
this system and
are ritually enacted in the daily meal.
As Douglas argues, the purity rules infuse into ordinary
practices a
multivalent system of implicit meanings. From her study of
seemingly
obscure details�—including the food taboos, sexual taboos, and
other
matters of purity and impurity�—comes a richer comprehension
of biblical
religion and cosmology. She summarizes her analysis of this
system as
follows:
It consists of rules of behaviour, actions and expectations which
constitute society itself. The rules which generate and sustain
society
allow meanings to be realised which otherwise would be
undefined and
ungraspable.... As in any social system, these rules are
specifications

which draw analogies between states. The cumulative power of
the
analogies enable one situation to be matched to another, related
by
equivalence, negation, hierarchy and inclusion. We discover
their
interrelatedness because of the repetitive formulas on which
they are
constructed, the economy and internal consistency of the
patterns. The
purity rules of the Bible ... set up the great inclusive categories
in which
the whole universe is hierarchised and structured.�”26
The abominable pig in Leviticus is not an irrational
superstition, a pre-
scientific prophylactic, or a moral allegory. It is an instance of
human social
and symbolic behavior�—of participating in and constituting
the meaning of
the world through everyday practices. It involves both the
stability of the
cultural-religious system and the risk of disruption and
disorder. These rules
and practices, Douglas observes, �“are a single system of
analogies, [which]
do not converge on any one point but sustain the whole moral
and physical
universe simultaneously in their systematic
interrelatedness.�”27
As Erich Auerbach would observe, this is a modernist
perspective, a
�“synthes[i]s gained through full exploitation of an everyday
occurrence,�” in
which individual details are revelatory of the larger reality. As

Durkheim
would add, it is an exemplary anthropological demonstration of
how rituals
embed cognitive and moral categories in social life. Through
the social
practice of purity laws, the real is infused with the ideal. In all
of these
respects, the instance of the abominable pig shows the richness
and
10
explanatory scope of Mary Douglas�’s version of
anthropological
modernism. 28
1 M. Douglas, �“Why I Have to Learn Hebrew: The Doctrine of
Sanctification,�”
The Comity and Grace of Method: Essays in Honor of Edmund
F. Perry, eds. T. Ryba, G.
D. Bond, and H. Tull (Evanston: Northwestern University Press,
2004), 151.
2 J. Sheehan, The Enlightenment Bible: Translation,
Scholarship, Culture (Princeton:
Princeton University Press), 219�–21.
3 B. Spinoza, Theological-Political Treatise, ed. J. Israel

(Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2007 [Latin original, 1670]), ch. 7 (�“On the
Interpretation of
Scripture�”).
4 See I. Berlin, �“Herder and the Enlightenment,�” in idem,
The Proper Study of
Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux, 1997), 359�–
435, esp. 403�–12.
5 R. Fardon, Mary Douglas: An Intellectual Biography (London:
Routledge, 1999),
260.
6 A. Kuper, Anthropology and Anthropologists: The Modern
British School (2nd ed.;
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983),36.
7 E. Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in
Western Literature
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 525�–53 (ch. 20,
�“The Brown
Stocking�”).
8 Auerbach, Mimesis, 547�–48.
9 Auerbach, Mimesis, 552.
10 Auerbach, Mimesis, 552.
11 See S. Lukes, Émile Durkheim: His Life and Work (London:
Penguin, 1973).
12 See K. E. Fields, �“Introduction,�” in É. Durkheim, The
Elementary Forms of
Religious Life, trans. Fields (New York: Free Press, 1995
[French original, 1912]),
xxiii.

13 See n. 14.
14 É. Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society, trans. W. D.
Halls (New York:
Free Press, 1997 [French original, 1893]); see Lukes, Durkheim,
147�–72.
15 M. Douglas, Implicit Meanings: Essays in Anthropology
(London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1975), xx.
16 Durkheim, Elementary Forms, 424.
17 Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the
Concepts of Pollution and
Taboo (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966), 62.
18 In the following discussion, I synthesize details of several of
Douglas�’s
discussions. She consistently revised her own views and
sometimes rejected earlier
versions. My comments represent a critical appropriation of her
work�—and include
judicious pruning of her occasional errors, on which see, e.g., J.
Milgrom, Leviticus
1�–16 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 719�–21.
19 It is unlikely that people in antiquity would have associated
this disease with
eating inadequately cooked pork; this correlation was only
discovered in 1846.
Moreover, as Douglas argues, this is not the reason given in
Leviticus, and it fails to
explain why all other non-ruminants are also prohibited.
20 Douglas, Purity and Danger, 41.

23 M. Douglas, �“Deciphering a Meal,�” in idem, Implicit
Meanings: Essays in
Anthropology (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), 262.
24 Douglas, �“Deciphering a Meal,�” 257.
11
25 Douglas, �“Deciphering a Meal,�” 263�–69; see further
Milgrom, Leviticus, 721�–
26; D. P. Wright, �“Unclean and Clean (OT),�” ABD 6. 739�–
41.
26 M. Douglas, �“Critique and Commentary,�” in J. Neusner,
The Idea of Purity in
Ancient Judaism (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 1;
Leiden: Brill, 1973), 138�–39.
27 Douglas, �“Critique and Commentary,�” 140.
28 For further elaboration of the Priestly food laws in a
Douglasian mode, see R.
Hendel, �“Table and Altar: The Anthropology of Food in the
Priestly Torah,�” To
Break Every Yoke: Essays in Honor of Marvin L. Chaney, eds.
R. B. Coote and N. K.
Gottwald (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007), 131�–48.

doi:10: 5508/jhs: 2008: v8: a8:
!"#$%&'()*+$&,$-#.(#/$
01(234'(#5$
!""#$%&'()%*+&$
!""#$%%&&&'(!)*+,-+.'*/012+31
!""#$%%#4/,'*/0%(!)
!"#$%&'() $*)+,-)."')/'$*0) $*1'2'1) $*) #3')!45!)
6'&$0$7*) 8.#./.('9) 6!:;<9) .*1) ;$;<5=) 43'$")
./(#".%#() .>>'.") $*) 6'&$0$7?() .*1) 43'7&70$%.&)
!/(#".%#(=)43')@7?"*.&)$()."%3$A'1)/B)!"#$%$&'%()'
*$+,"-./'0%(%)%).*1)$().%%'(($/&')C7")%7*(?&#.#$7*)
.*1) "'('."%3) .#) #3') D&'%#"7*$%) E7&&'%#$7*) ($#')
F.$*#.$*'1)/B)!"#$%$&'%()'*$+,"-./'0%(%)%' GC7").)
1$"'%#)&$*H9)%&$%H)3'"'I=))
,-./01$23$456!7.1$%&$
$
84,!8$9:$;5!<=63$$
817!9=15!#<$4$81>!#!6!-#?$6=1$"@#64<046!7$
"65/76/54.$4#[email protected]"!"$->$5!6/4.$!#$6=1$=1A51;$
A!A.1$
$
$

)
http://www.jhsonline.org/
http://purl.org/jhs
http://jnul.huji.ac.il/rambi/
http://collectionscanada.ca/electroniccollection/003008-200-
e.html
http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/journal_hebrew/index.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2008.v8.a12
56789:;16<1=>?8>@1AB8CDE78>A)F
1
817!9=15!#<$4$81>!#!6!-#?$
6=1$"@#64<046!7$"65/76/54.$4#[email protected]"!"$->$
5!6/4.$!#$6=1$=1A51;$A!A.1$
G:HCG1D'[email protected]=EJ1
?8:9G>CA179CH>8ACEK1
43')J7"H)/B):."B)87?0&.()#3.#)3.()/''*)#3')F7(#)$*C&?'*#$.&)$
*)FB)7J*)
(#?1B) 7C) /$/&$%.&) "$#?.&) $() *7#) 3'") /77H) 12$"3&'
%()'4%(5.$) .*1) .((7%$.#'1)
'((.B(9).()7*')F$03#)$F.0$*')0$A'*)FB)&7*0)$*#'"'(#)$*)/$/&$
%.&)>?"$#B)&.J(9)
/?#)".#3'")3'")&$##&')'((.B)K8'%$>3'"$*0).):'.&9L)>?/&$(3'1)
C$"(#)$*)4%.)%62/)
$*)MNOP).*1)"'>"$*#'1)$*)3'")%7&&'%#$7*)7896"+"3':.%("(5
/)$*)MNOQ=L)43$()$()*7#)
#7)0.$*(.B)#3')$F>7"#.*%')7C)3'")F7(#)C.F7?()J7"H)C7")(#$F?
&.#$*0)F71'"*)
%7*%'>#?.&).*#3"7>7&70$%.&).*.&B($()7C)#3')(''F$*0&B)$"
".#$7*.&)"'R?$"'F'*#()

7C)5'A$#$%?()MM).*1)8'?#'"7*7FB)MS=);?#)#3.#)1'#.$&'1)%7
*#"$/?#$7*9)J3$&')
$#)3.()$F>&$%.#$7*()C7")#3')(#?1B)7C)/"7.1'")*7#$7*()7C)(7
%$.&).*1)>"$'(#&B)
%&.(().*1)(.%"'1)(>.%').*1)#$F'9)$()&$F$#'1)#7).)".#3'")(>'%$
C$%)>"7/&'F=),'")
'((.B)7*)F'.&(9)$*)%7*#".(#9)'A'*)#37?03)#3')&.(#)3.&C)#3')'(
(.B)%7F'()/.%H)
#7).11"'(()(7F')%"$#$%$(F()7C)3'").*.&B($()7C)#3')/$/&$%.&)
1$'#."B)&.J(9)('#()
7?#).)F'#371)7C)"$#?.&).*.&B($()#3.#)3.().>>&$%.#$7*)C.")/'
B7*1)#3')(#?1B)7C)
%?&$*."B)%?(#7F).*1)'A'*)0'#()#7)#3')3'."#)7C)#3')1'C$*$#$7
*)7C)J3.#)"$#?.&)
$(=F1)
T3$&')<)%.&&)3'")(#?1B).*)'2.F>&')7C)"$#?.&).*.&B($(9)87?
0&.()17'()*7#)
.%#?.&&B)>7"#".B)$#).()(?%3=)<#)$().)F'#371)C7")'2.F$*$*0)
#3')'*#$"')".*0')7C)
"'&.#'1) .%#$A$#$'() J$#3$*) .) (>'%$C$%) %?&#?".&)
%7*#'2#) 7") (7%$'#B9) $*%&?1$*0)
.%#$A$#$'()#3.#)."')*7#)J3.#)J')J7?&1)%.&&)"$#?.&=)<*1''19)
$*)3'")C7%?()7*)#3')
>3'*7F'*7*)7C)F'.&(9)#3')[email protected]"$#B)7C)%.('()#3.#)
(3')%7*($1'"()."')$*)C.%#)
*7#)"$#?.&).%%7"1$*0)#7)%7FF7*)1'C$*$#$7*(=)!*1)#3')C'.#
?"'()7C)F'.&()#3.#)
(3')?('() C7") 3'") .*.&B($() ."')*7#) $*3'"'*#&B)
$*1$%.#$A')7C) "$#?.&=) <#) $() *7)
J7*1'")#3'*)#3.#9)J3$&')(3')17'()"'C'")#7)F'.&()#3.#)."')"$#?.&)
'A'*#(9)(3')
?('()#3')#'"F)K"$#?.&L)7*&B)$*).)>.(($*0)C.(3$7*=M1)
;?#) $#) >"'%$('&B) #3$()/"7.1) (%7>')
#3.#)F.H'()3'")F'#371)?&#$F.#'&B)

>'"#$*'*#)#7)"$#?.&).*.&B($(=)<#).&&7J()7*')#7)?*1'"(#.*1).)
0$A'*)>'"C7"F.*%')
7")%?(#7F)J3$%3)F.B)/')%7*($1'"'1).)%.(')7C)"$#?.&)$*)#3')/"
7.1)%7*#'2#)7C)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
M) :."B) 87?0&.(9) K8'%$>3'"$*0) .) :'.&9L) 4%.)%62/)
GT$*#'") MNOPI9) UMVWMX) $#)
.>>'."().()%3.>#'")MU)$*)3'")7896"+"3':.%("(5/)G57*17*Y)67?
#&'10'9)MNOQI9)PSNVPOQ=)
,'") '((.B)J$&&)/') %$#'1) C"7F)
7896"+"3':.%("(5/)/'&7J=)43$() $*C&?'*%'1)FB)."#$%&')
K->'%#"?F) 7C) Z"$'(#&B) <F>?"$#B9L) [."B) !=) !*1'"(7*)
.*1) -.?&) :=) &B.*) G'1(=I'
1$"./3,;;)'%()'0263'"('*(+".(3'7/$%.6)G+-4-)MPQX)-
3'CC$'&1Y)-3'CC$'&1)!%.1'F$%)Z"'((9)
MNNM9I)MQ]VMWM).*1)$*C&?'*%'1)#3').>>"7.%3)#7)"$#?.
&)$*)FB)/77H)<"32%6'"('=%$$%3"-.>'
?,.'4&(%8"+/' ;@'A.%/3"(5B':;2$("(5B'%()'<.3%6"%3";('<"3./'
"(' 3,.'C5%$"3"+'?%6.' ;@'*D,%3'
GT$*7*.)5.H'Y)D$('*/".?*(9)P]]MI=)
P)87?0&.(9)7896"+"3':.%("(5/9)PSNVPUM=)
^)-''9)C7")'2.F>&'9)"#")=9)PQS=)
)
G>BCD=>8C9I1:1G><C9CEC691 M
(7%$.&)>".%#$%').*1)#7)$1'*#$CB)F7"')%&'."&B)#3')(#".#'0$
'()?('1)#3.#)%7*(#$#?#')
.) "$#?.&) >'"C7"F.*%'=) 43') .>>"7.%3) '2.F$*'() #3')
%7*#'2#) 7C) .&&) "'&.#'1)

.%#$7*) #7) '&?%$1.#') .*B) >."#$%?&.") >'"C7"F.*%')
J$#3$*) .) ('#) 7C)
>3'*7F'*7&70$%.&&B)"'&.#'1).%#$A$#$'(=))
87?0&.()(>'%$C$%.&&B)%7*1?%#().)(B*#.0F.#$%).*.&B($()7
C)F'.&()7C)3'")
57*17*)F$11&')%&.(()/.%H0"7?*1=)-
3')#3?().%#().()/7#3)'#3*70".>3'").*1)
*.#$A')$*C7"F.*#=),'")(#?1B)3.()#J7).(>'%#(=)43')C$"(#9)F7"')
"$07"7?().*1)
%7F>&'2)/?#)&'(()(?$#./&')C7")>"'('*#.#$7*)$*).)/"$'C)'((.B9)$
()#3')%"'.#$7*)7C)
.) C".F'J7"H) 7C) .*.&B#$%) %.#'07"$'(=) -3') /"'.H() 17J*)
'.%3) 'A'*#) #3.#)
$*A7&A'()$*0'(#$7*)$*#7)$#()/.($%)'&'F'*#()(7)#3.#)$#)%.*)/'
)%7F>."'1)J$#3)
7#3'")(?%3)'A'*#(=)-
3')%&.(($C$'()F'.&)?*$#()C"7F)&."0'(#)#7)(F.&&'(#)G1.$&B)
F'*?9) F'.&9) %7?"('9) 3'&>$*09) F7?#3C?&I) .*1) $1'*#$C$'()
#3') (>'%$C$%) C771)
#B>'() #3.#) F.H') ?>) .) F'.&) G.*#$>.(#$9) F'.#) 1$(3'(9)
0"$&&'1) C$(39) F'&7*9)
>?11$*09) .*1) (7)
C7"#3I=)43$()1'#.$&'1)%&.(($C$%.#$7*).&&7J()3'") #7)
$1'*#$CB)
>.##'"*()$*)#3')0"7?>$*0)7C)F'.&).*1)C771)'&'F'*#()#3"7?037
?#)#3')(B(#'F=)
*') >.##'"*9) J3$%3) /'%7F'() $F>7"#.*#) C7") 3'") 0'*'".&)
.*.&B($(9) $() #3')
>"'('*%')7C)7*')F.$*).*1)#J7)(?/7"1$*.#')C771)$#'F(=)<*)F7"')'
&./7".#')
F'.&(9)#3$()>.##'"*).>>'."()F?&#$C7&19)J3'"'.().)/.($%)F'.&)F.
B)%7*($(#)7C)
7*')$*(#.*%')7C)#3')>.##'"*=)-
3')7*&B)(.F>&'()#3')1'#.$&'1)%&.(($C$%.#$7*)7C)
F'.&(9) "'%70*$_$*0) #3.#9) #37?03) 3'") .*.&B($()

K.1A.*%'() %7*($1'"./&B) #3')
.*.&B($()7C)7?")C.F$&B)'.#$*0)>.##'"*(9L)$#).&(7)K(37J()37
J)&7*0).*1)#'1$7?()
#3')'23.?(#$A').*.&B($()J7?&1)/'9)'A'*)#7)"'.1=)<#)J7?&1)/')F7
"')#.2$*0)#7)
7/('"A').*1)"'%7"1=LN
47).A7$1)'**?$9)(3')F7A'()#7).)F7"')0'*'".&)F71')7C).*.&B($(9
).*1)
#3$() $() J3'"') 3'") .>>"7.%3) /'%7F'() >."#$%?&."&B)
3'&>C?&) C7") (%37&."() 7C)
/$/&$%.&) "$#?.&9)'(>'%$.&&B) ($*%')
#3');$/&')>"7A$1'()3."1&B)'*7?03)'A$1'*%')
J$#3)J3$%3)#7)>&B)3'")F7"')'23.?(#$A').>>"7.%3=)T')3.A')#3'
)1.#.)#3.#)#3')
/$/&$%.&)J"$#'"()3.A')%37('*)#7)"'%7"1=):.H$*0)('*(')7C)#3$(
)7C#'*)"'R?$"'()
#3')*?10')7C)%"'.#$A')$*($03#=)!F7*0)3'")%3$'C)0'*'".&)7/('"
A.#$7*()$()#3.#)
#7)?*1'"(#.*1).*B)>."#$%?&.")$*(#.*%')7C).)F'.&9)7*')F?(#)?*
1'"(#.*1)#3')
'*#$"') (%7>') 7C) "'&.#'1) >3'*7F'*.=) -3') %7?%3'() #3$()
7/('"A.#$7*) $*) .)
%"$#$%$(F) 7C) #3') (#"?%#?".&) .>>"7.%3) 7C) 5'A$`-
#".?((=) -3') (.B() #3.#) /B)
C7%?($*0)F'"'&B)7*)/$*."B)>.$"(9)-
#".?(()K.CC7"1()*7)#'%3*$R?')C7").(('(($*0)
#3') $.6%3"-.' -%62.) 7C) #3') /$*."B) >.$"() #3.#) 'F'"0') $*) .)
&7%.&) ('#) 7C)
'2>"'(($7*(=LO)-3')07'()7*)#7)(.BY)
a7").*.&B_$*0)#3')C771)%.#'07"$'()?('1)$*).)>."#$%?&.")C.F$
&B)#3').*.&B($()
F?(#) (#."#) J$#3) J3B) #37(') >."#$%?&.") %.#'07"$'() .*1)
*7#) 7#3'"() ."')
'F>&7B'1=) T') J$&&) 1$(%7A'") #3') (7%$.&) /7?*1."$'()

J3$%3) #3') C771)
F'.*$*0() '*%71') /B) .*) .>>"7.%3) J3$%3) A.&?'() #3') /$*."B)
>.$"()
.%%7"1$*0)#7)#3'$")>7($#$7*)
$*).)('"$'(=);'#J''*)/"'.HC.(#).*1)#3') &.(#)
*$03#%.>9) #3') C771)7C) #3')1.B)%7F'()
$*).*)7"1'"'1)>.##'"*=);'#J''*)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
S)7#")=9)PQ^VPQS=)
Q)7#")=9)PQ])GFB)$#.&$%(I=)
)
56789:;16<1=>?8>@1AB8CDE78>A)N
1
:7*1.B) .*1)-?*1.B9) #3') C771)7C) #3')J''H) $()>.##'"*'1)
.0.$*=)43'*)
#3'"')$()#3')('R?'*%')7C)37&$1.B(9)/$"#31.B(9).*1)J'11$*0(=P)
)
a"7F)#3$()(3')7/('"A'(Y)
<*)7#3'")J7"1(9) #3')/$*."B)7")7#3'") %7*#".(#()F?(#) /') (''*)
$*) #3'$")
(B*#.0F.#$%)"'&.#$7*(=)43')%3.$*)J3$%3)&$*H()#3'F)#70'#3'
")0$A'()'.%3)
'&'F'*#)(7F')7C)$#()F'.*$*0=Q))
43')H'B)'&'F'*#) C7")F')3'"') $()*7#) (7)F?%3)J3.#) (3') (.B()
./7?#)
(#"?%#?".&) 7") (7%$7&70$%.&) .*.&B($(9) /?#) #3.#) #3')
.*.&B($() 7C) .) >."#$%?&.")

>'"C7"F.*%') F?(#) 7%%?") $*) %7**'%#$7*) J$#3) #3')
C?&&) ."".B) 7C) ($F$&.")
>3'*7F'*.=))
!()(3')07'()7*)#7)'2.F$*')F'.&()#3'F('&A'(9)(3')*7#'()#3.#)>.##'"
*()$*)
($F>&')F'.&(9).)/"'.HC.(#)C7")'2.F>&'9)F.B)/')"'>&$%.#'1).*1)
F?&#$>&$'1)$*)
F7"')%7F>&'2)F'.&(9)(?%3).().)-
?*1.B).C#'"*77*)7")37&$1.B)F'.&=)43$()$()
#3')>.##'"*)#3.#)<)F'*#$7*'1)'."&$'"9)#3')>"'('*%')7C)7*')>"$F.
"B).*1)#J7)
(?/($1$."B)C771)$#'F(=)C)#3')"'>'.#'1)>.##'"*(9)(3')(.B(Y)
43')(F.&&'(#9)F'.*'(#)F'.&)F'#7*BF$%.&&BR)C$0?"'()#3')(#"?
%#?"')7C)#3')
0".*1'(#9) .*1) '.%3) ?*$#) 7C) #3') 0".*1) F'.&) C$0?"'() .0.$*)
#3') J37&')
F'.&b7")#3')F'.*'(#)F'.&=)43')>'"(>'%#$A')%"'.#'1)/B)#3'(')"'>'#
$#$A')
.*.&70$'()$*A'(#()#3')$*1$A$1?.&)F'.&)J$#3).11$#$7*.&)F'.*$
*0=S))
Z."#)7C)3'")%7*%'"*)3'"')$()#3')>3'*7F'*7&70B)7C)F'.&(9)#7)
'2>&.$*)
J3B)(7F')#3$*0()#3.#)>?">7"#)#7)/')F'.&()."')*7#)$*)C.%#)8.%
6/=)-3')0$A'()#3')
'2.F>&')7C)(7?>).*1)>?11$*0)#70'#3'"=)*')F$03#)C$&&)?>)7*
)#3'(')$#'F(b
$='=9) 7/#.$*) (7F')>".%#$%.&) *?#"$#$7*.&)/'*'C$#b/?#) $#)
$() *7#) .) KF'.&L)/B)
(7%$.&)1'C$*$#$7*)7")'2>'%#.#$7*)7")/B)#3')>.##'"*$*0)'2>7(
'1)/B)(B*#.0F.#$%)
.*.&B($(=) 43$() 7/('"A.#$7*) .%#?.&&B) "'&.#'() #7) .*7#3'")
R?'(#$7*) $*) "$#?.&)
.*.&B($(9)#3.#)7C)$*C'&$%$#7?()"$#?.&9).()'2>&7"'1)/B)67*.

&1)["$F'(9).*1)J3$%3)
<) J$&&) 1$(%?(() &.#'") 7*=) 87?0&.(c() (B*#.0F.#$%)
.*.&B($(9) J3$%3) &77H() C7")
>.##'"*()7C)(#"?%#?".&)"'>'#$#$7*9)F.B)3'&>)%&."$CB)J3B)(
7F')"$#?.&).%#()17)
*7#)J7"H)J'&&=))
T3.#)87?0&.() (.B()./7?#) "'>'.#'1)(#"?%#?"')F.B)/')%7*(#"?'1)
$*).)
F7"') 0'*'".&) ('*('9) .() .) *''1) #7) ('."%3) C7")
$*#'"%7*#'2#?.&) F'.*$*0)
/'#J''*)#3')0".*1'(#).*1)F'.*'(#)'2.F>&'()7C)>3'*7F'*.)7C).)>."#$
%?&.")
#B>')$*)J3.#'A'")J.B)#3')'A$1'*%').&&7J()7")$*)%7**'%#$7*)J
$#3)J3.#'A'")
(>'%$C$%)F'#3717&70B).*).*.&B(#)F.B)?('=)T3'*)A$'J'1)/"7.1
&B)$*)#3$()J.B9)
87?0&.(c()F'#371)7C).*.&B($() #$'() $*#7)
#3')1'C$*$#$7*)7C).*1).>>"7.%3)#7)
"$#?.&)>"7>7('1)/B)E.#3'"$*');'&&=)a7")#3$()"'%'*#)#3'7"$(#9
)#3'"')$()*7)3."1)
.*1)C.(#)1'F."%.#$7*)/'#J''*)"$#?.&).*1)*7*`"$#?.&=)6.#3'"9)"
$#?.&).%#()."')
"'&.#'1)#7)#3'$")*7*`"$#?.&)%7*0'*'"().*1)C'.#?"')(#".#'0$'()#3
.#)F."H)#3'F)
.()"$#?.&=);'%.?(')7C)#3$()"'&.#$7*(3$>)/'#J''*)"$#?.&).*1)*7*
`"$#?.&).%#(9);'&&)
>"'C'"()#7)(>'.H)7C)$"32%6"E%3";()".#3'")#3.*)"$#?.&=)-
3')1'C$*'()#3$().(Y)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
U)7#")=9)PQ]VPQM)
O)7#")=9)PQM=)
W)")(B*'%17%3$%.&&B=)
N)87?0&.(9)7896"+"3':.%("(5/9)PQO=)

)
G>BCD=>8C9I1:1G><C9CEC691 O
.)J.B)7C) .%#$*0) #3.#) $() 1'($0*'1) .*1)7"%3'(#".#'1)
#7)1$(#$*0?$(3) .*1)
>"$A$&'0') J3.#) $() /'$*0) 17*') $*) %7F>."$(7*) #7) 7#3'"9)
?(?.&&B) F7"')
R?7#$1$.*9) .%#$A$#$'(=) !() (?%39) "$#?.&$_.#$7*) $() .)
F.##'") 7C) A."$7?()
%?&#?".&&B)(>'%$C$%)(#".#'0$'()C7")('##$*0)(7F').%#$A$#
$'()7CC)C"7F)7#3'"(9)
C7")%"'.#$*0).*1)>"$A$&'0$*0).)R?.&$#.#$A')1$(#$*%#$7*)/'
#J''*)#3')d(.%"'1c)
.*1)#3')d>"7C.*'9c).*1)C7").(%"$/$*0)(?%3)1$(#$*%#$7*()#7)
"'.&$#$'()#37?03#)
#7)#".*(%'*1)#3')>7J'"()7C)3?F.*).%#7"(=LT))
43$()1'C$*$#$7*9) &$H')87?0&.(c()
(B*#.0F.#$%).>>"7.%39)>&.%'()($1'`/B`
($1') >'"C7"F.*%'() /'&7*0$*0) #7) #3') (.F') 0'*'".&)
>3'*7F'*7&70B) G'=0=9)
F'.&(I).*1)$F>&$'()#3.#)#7)?*1'"(#.*1)#3')7*')$#)$()*'%'((."B)
#7)?*1'"(#.*1)
#3')7#3'").*1)'A'*).)".*0')7C)($F$&.").%#$A$#$'()$*).)(>'%$C$
%)%?&#?".&)%7*#'2#)
7")(7%$'#B)(#?1$'1=)))
;'&&)3'"('&C)"'C'"()#7)F'.&()#7)'2'F>&$CB)3'")1'C$*$#$7*)7C
)"$#?.&$_.#$7*=)
-
3').>>."'*#&B)$()*7#)#3$*H$*0)7C)87?0&.(c()'((.B9)#7)#'&&)
C"7F)#3')&.%H)7C)
"'C'"'*%')#7)$#)$*)3'")*7#'(=);?#)(3')*7*'#3'&'(()&$H')87?0&.(

)>&.%'()"$#?.&)
.*1)*7*`"$#?.&) A'"($7*()7C) #3') (.F')>3'*7F'*7*)
$*)1$.&70?')J$#3) '.%3)
7#3'"Y)
===1$(#$*%#$7*() /'#J''*) '.#$*0) .) "'0?&.") F'.&) .*1)
>."#$%$>.#$*0) $*) #3')
E3"$(#$.*)'?%3."$(#$%)F'.&)."')"'1?*1.*#&B)1".J*)$*)'A'"B).(
>'%#)7C)#3')
"$#?.&$_'1)F'.&9)C"7F)#3')#B>')7C)&."0'")C.F$&B)0.#3'"$*0)
."7?*1)#3')#./&')
#7) #3')1$(#$*%#$A')>'"$71$%$#B)7C) #3')F'.&).*1) #3')
$*(?CC$%$'*%B)7C) #3')
C771)C7")>3B($%.&)*7?"$(3F'*#=)<#)$()$F>7"#.*#)#7)*7#')#
3.#)#3')C'.#?"'()
7C)C7"F.&$#B9)C$2$#B9).*1)"'>'#$#$7*)."')*7#)$*#"$*($%)#
7)#3$()"$#?.&$_.#$7*)7")
#7)"$#?.&)$*)0'*'".&=)43'7"'#$%.&&B9)"$#?.&$_.#$7*)7C)#3'
)F'.&)%7?&1)'F>&7B)
.)1$CC'"'*#)('#)7C)(#".#'0$'()#7)1$CC'"'*#$.#')$#)C"7F)%7*A'
*#$7*.&)'.#$*09)
(?%3).()37&1$*0)#3')F'.&)7*&B)7*%')$*).)>'"(7*c()&$C'#$F')
7")J$#3)#77)
F?%3) C771) C7") *7"F.&) *7?"$(3F'*#=)43') %37$%') 7C)
(#".#'0$'()J7?&1)
1'>'*1)$*)>."#)7*)J3$%3)7*'()%7?&1)F7(#)'CC'%#$A'&B)"'*1'
")#3')F'.&)
(BF/7&$%.&&B) 17F$*.*#) #7) $#() %7*A'*#$7*.&)
%7?*#'">."#(=) 43') %37$%')
J7?&1).&(7)1'>'*1)7*)#3')>."#$%?&.")dJ7"Hc)#3')"$#?.&$_'1).
%#().$F'1)#7)
.%%7F>&$(3)$*).)($#?.#$7*=)[$A'*)#3$().*.&B($(9)"$#?.&$_.
#$7*)%7?&1)$*A7&A')
#3')'2.%#) "'>'#$#$7*)7C).)%'*#?"$'(`7&1)
#".1$#$7*)7")1'&$/'".#'&B) ".1$%.&)
$**7A.#$7*) .*1) $F>"7A$(.#$7*9) .() $*) %'"#.$*) C7"F() 7C)

&$#?"0$%.&)
'2>'"$F'*#.#$7*)7")>'"C7"F.*%')."#=LL))
437?03)#3'B)3.A')1$CC'"'*#)#3'7"'#$%.&)F7#$A.#$7*().*1)3.A
')1$CC'"'*#)
.*.&B#$%)>?">7('(9);'&&c().*1)87?0&.(c().>>"7.%3'()#3?()07)
3.*1)$*)3.*1)$*)
>7$*#$*0) #7) #3')*'%'(($#B)7C)A$'J$*0) "$#?.&) .()>."#)7C)
.) &."0'") %7*#'2#)7C)
($F$&.") >".%#$%') $*%&?1$*0) *7*`"$#?.&) >".%#$%'=) 43')
*'J) 1'C$*$#$7*) 7C)
"$#?.&$_.#$7*).()C7?*1)$*);'&&c()J7"H)'2>.*1()J3.#)F$03#)/')
$*%&?1'1)?*1'")
#3')?F/"'&&.)7C)"$#?.&9)($*%')#3'"')."')A."$7?()(#".#'0$'()7C)
"$#?.&$_.#$7*).*1)
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
M])E.#3'"$*');'&&9)<"32%6'?,.;$&B'<"32%6'1$%+3"+.)
Ge'J)f7"HY)2C7"1)g*$A'"($#B)
Z"'((9)MNNPI9)OS=)a7")%7*#$*?'1)1$(%?(($7*9)('')E.#3'"$*')
;'&&9)<"32%6>'1.$/9.+3"-./'%()'
4"8.(/";(/)Ge'J)f7"HY)2C7"19)MNNOI=)
MM)7#")=9)N]VNM=);'&&)17'()*7#)%$#')87?0&.(c()'((.B).#)#
3$()>7$*#)$*)3'")(#?1B)G('')
>>=)MQMVMQPI=))
)
56789:;16<1=>?8>@1AB8CDE78>A)P
1
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

1$CC'"'*#)1'0"''()#7)J3$%3)#3'(')."')F.*$C'(#'1=)<*)#'"F()7C)F'
.&()$*)#3')
%7*#'2#)7C)#3');$/&'9)J3'*)J')&77H)C7")"$#?.&)F'.&(9)J')*7#
)7*&B)3.A')#7)
&77H).#)(.%"$C$%'9)J3'"')>7"#$7*()/?"*'1)7*)#3').&#.")."')f.3
J'3c()C771).*1)
J3'"')>"$'(#().*1)&.B)7CC'"'"()'.#)>7"#$7*()7C)#3')(.%"$C$%'=
LF)T')F?(#)&77H)
.#)7#3'").*19)B'(9)('%?&.")F'.&()C7")C'.#?"'()7C)"$#?.&$_.#$7
*=)5'#)?()'2.F$*')
7*')(?%3)F'.&)(%'*')$*)/$/&$%.&)*."".#$A')#3.#)7*')F.B)*7#)#
3$*H)#7)%7*($1'")
J3'*) '2.F$*$*0) /$/&$%.&) (.%"$C$%'Y) #3') C'.(#) #3.#)
+7('>3) 37&1() J$#3) 3$()
/"7#3'"()?>7*)#3'$")('%7*1)"'#?"*)#7)D0B>#9)J3'*)#3'B)/"$*0)
#3'$")/"7#3'")
;'*@.F$*9)1'(%"$/'1)$*)['*'($()S^=)
T3'*)#3')/"7#3'"().""$A').*1)+7('>3)(''();'*@.F$*9)3')$FF'1$.#'
&B)
>&.*().)C'.(#).*1)7"1'"()3$()(#'J."1)#7)/"$*0)#3')F'*)$*#7)#3')3
7?(').*1)
(&.?03#'") .*) .*$F.&) GA=) MUI=) 43$() %7FF.*1) F.B) /')
(''*) .() #3') $*$#$.&)
"$#?.&$_'1)C'.#?"')7C)#3')C'.(#=)<#)$().)>'"C7"F.#$A')(>''%3).
%#)#3.#)F."H()#3')
$*.?0?".#$7*)7C)#3')>"7%''1$*0(=LM)<#)$()C?"#3'")1'C$*./&'
).()"$#?.&).%#$7*)$*)
$#()%7**'%#$7*)J$#3)#3')J37&')7C)#3')C'.(#)#3.#)C7&&7J().*
1)$*)('##$*0)7?#)#3')
37J)#3')/"7#3'"()."')#7)C$"(#)"'&.#')#7)#3')%7*#'2#)7C)#3')C'.(
#=))
a7&&7J$*0) +7('>3c() %7FF.*19) #3') (#'J."1) #.H'() #3')
/"7#3'"() #7)

+7('>3c()37?(')GAA=)MO9)PSI9).*1)-
$F'7*9)J37)(#.B'1).()(?"'#B)$*)D0B>#9)$()
/"7?03#)#7)@7$*)#3'F)GA=)P^I=)43$(9)#779)$().)"$#?.&$_'1).
%#)($*%')$#)>?#()#3')
/"7#3'"() $*) #3') >3B($%.&) (>.%') J3'"') #3') C'.(#) J$&&)
#.H') >&.%'=LN) <#) $()
%7F>."./&')#7)$*A$#$*0)0?'(#()#3"7?03)#3')C"7*#)177")$*#7)
7*'c()37F')C7").)
1$**'")>."#B=);'&&c().*.&B($()3'&>()?()?*1'"(#.*1)37J)#3$()7
>'".#'().()"$#?.&=)
a7")3'"9)"$#?.&)17'()*7#)($F>&B)(BF/7&$_')7")"'C&'%#)(7%$
.&)"'&.#$7*(3$>(9)/?#)
$() .)F'.*()7C) %"'.#$*0) #3'F=) <*) C.%#9) (3') "'($(#() #3')
1$%37#7FB) #3.#) .*)
.*.&B($() 7C) "$#?.&) .() (BF/7&) %"'.#'(=) !) 1?.&$(F) J3'"')
F'.*$*0) '2$(#()
('>.".#'&B) C"7F) #3') >'"C7"F.*%') $() #3'7"'#$%.&&B)
>"7/&'F.#$%=) a7") 3'"9)
#3'"'C7"'9) "$#?.&c()F'.*$*0) &$'()>"$F."$&B) $*)J3.#)
$#)17'(9) $='=9) '(#./&$(3$*0)
>7J'")"'&.#$7*(3$>()/'#J''*)>."#$%$>.*#(=)<*)+7('>3c()C'.(#9)
#3')$*#"71?%#$7*)
7C) #3') /"7#3'"() $*#7) #3') 37?(') $() #3') /'0$**$*0) 7C)
C7"F?&.#$*0) .) *'J)
"'&.#$7*(3$>)J$#3)#3'F=))
Z"'>.".#$7*() %7*#$*?') J$#3) #3') 37(>$#.&$#B) %?(#7F) 7C)
.&&7J$*0) #3')
$*A$#'1)0?'(#()#7)J.(3)#3'$")C''#)G%C=)MWYMVMQX)MNY
MVMSX)PSY^MVQSI=)437?03)
#3$() 3.() .) >".%#$%.&) >?">7(') .*1) $() *7#) "'&$0$7?() $*)
*.#?"'9) $#) $() (#$&&) .)
"$#?.&$_'1).%#) $*)#3.#) $#)
$().)/'*'C$#)/'(#7J'1)/B).)37(#)7*)3$()0?'(#().*1)
%7*(#"?%#().)"'&.#$7*(3$>)/'#J''*)#3')>."#$'(=)<#)$()#3')%7*
#'2#)7C)1'>&7B'1)

"'&.#$7*(3$>()#3.#)3'&>()1'C$*')#3$().()"$#?.&9).()7>>7('19)
C7")'2.F>&'9)#7).)
*7*`"$#?.&) %.(') 7C) %&'.*$*0) &$H') #3') 'A'"B1.B)
/"?(3$*0) 7C) 7*'c() #''#3=)
)
MP)a7").)"'%'*#)/.($%)
#3'7"'#$%.&)%7*($1'".#$7*)7C)(.%"$C$%'9)('')8=)Z=)T"$03#9
)
K43')-#?1B)7C)6$#?.&) $*)
#3'),'/"'J);$/&'9L)a"'1'"$%H)D=)["''*>.3*) G'1=I'?,.'
F.#$.G'H"#6.>'=.G'7(/"5,3/'%()'I+,;6%$/,"9)G+'J$(3)-
#?1$'()$*)#3')4J'*#B`a$"(#)E'*#?"BX)
e'J)f7"HY)e'J)f7"H)g*$A'"($#B)Z"'((9)P]]WI9)MP]VM^W=)
M^)-
'')+=)5=)!?(#$*9)F;G'3;'4;'?,"(5/'J"3,'J;$)/)GP1)'1=X)E.F/"$10'Y
),."A."1)
g*$A'"($#B)Z"'((9)MNOQhM(#)'1=)MNUPiIX) +73*)6=)-
'."&'9)KT3.#)<()!)->''%3)!%#j9L)
:.2);&.%H)G'1=I'1,"6;/;9,&'"('*8.$"+%)G<#3.%.Y)E7"*'&&)g*
$A'"($#B)Z"'((9)MNUQI9)PPMV
P^N=)
MS)a7")(>.%')$*)"$#?.&9)(''9)C7")'2.F>&'9)+7*.#3.*)k=)-
F$#39)?;'?%K.'16%+.>'?;G%$)'
?,.;$&'"('<"32%6)GE3$%.07Y)g*$A'"($#B)7C)E3$%.07)Z"'(9)
MNWOI=)
)
G>BCD=>8C9I1:1G><C9CEC691 Q

;"?(3$*0) #3') #''#3)J7?&1)/').) "$#?.&$_'1).%#) $C).)37(#)J'"')
#7)>"7A$1').)
1$**'"`>."#B) 0?'(#)J$#3) .) #77#3/"?(3) #7)/')?('1) $*)
%7**'%#$7*)J$#3) #3')
'A'*#=))
!C#'")#3')/"7#3'"()J.(39).*1)+7('>3).""$A'(9)#3'B)>"'('*#)#7)3$
F)#3')
0$C#()#3.#)#3'B)/"7?03#).*1)#3'B)>"7(#".#')#3'F('&A'()GA=)P
UI=)e7#)7*&B)17'()
7/'$(.*%')"$#?.&$_')#3')0$C#)0$A$*09)0$C#)0$A$*0)$#('&C)$
().)"$#?.&$_'1).%#=)T3.#)
#3'B)'2>'%#) #7)0'#) C"7F)+7('>3) $()3."1&B)'R?$A.&'*#) #7)
#3')0$C#9)J3$%3) $()
1'(%"$/'1).()K(7F')/.&F).*1)(7F')37*'B9)0?F9)&.1.*?F9)>$(#.%
3$7)*?#(9)
.*1).&F7*1(L)GA=)MMX)e+Z-
I=)43')0$C#)$().)($0*)7C)#3')/"7#3'"(c)(?/F$(($7*)
#7)+7('>3=)<#)%7*A'B()(7F'#3$*0)./7?#)#3'$")$*#'*#)$*)#3$()
*'07#$.#$7*=)<#)$()
#3')#37?03#)#3.#)%7?*#()3'"'=))
43')C'.(#)7A'".&&)'*#.$&()"$#?.&)$*C'&$%$#B=)43$()$()J3'"'
)(7F'#3$*0)$*)#3')
>'"C7"F.*%')$()*7#)R?$#')"$03#)7")>"7%''1().F$((=LO)<*)#3')
%.(')/'C7"')?(9)
7*')'&'F'*#)7C)$*C'&$%$#B)$()#3')%&7?1)7C)1'%'$#)?*1'")J3
$%3)+7('>3)7>'".#'(=)
43')/"7#3'"()17)*7#)H*7J)J$#3)J37F)#3'B)."')1'.&$*0=)C)%7?"
('9)C"7F)
+7('>3c()>7$*#)7C)A$'J9)#3$*0()17)>"7%''1).%%7"1$*0)#7)>
&.*=)!*7#3'")#B>')
7C) $*C'&$%$#B) 7%%?"() $*) #3') 0$C#`0$A$*0) (%'*'=) *')
'2>'%#() +7('>3) #7)
.%H*7J&'10')"'%'$>#)7C)#3')0$C#=);?#)3')>.B()*7).##'*#$7*)#
7)3$()/"7#3'"(c)

0$C#(9)$*(#'.1)R?'(#$7*$*0)#3'F)./7?#)#7)C.F$&B)$((?'(=),')C
$"(#).(H().C#'")3$()
C.#3'"=)43')/"7#3'"()(.B)#3.#)3')$()C$*').*1)/7J).0.$*=)<#)$().(
)$C)#3'B)."')
J.$#$*0) C7") 3$F) #7) "'%70*$_') #3') 0$C#) .*1) 3.A')
#7)F.H') #3') 0'(#?"') 7C)
>"'('*#.#$7*).)('%7*1)#$F'=)E7*A'*#$7*)1$%#.#'().)%'"#.$*)1'
A'&7>F'*#)$*)
#3')$*#'".%#$7*)/'#J''*)#3')#J7)>."#$'(9)/?#)+7('>3)07'()7CC)(
%"$>#=)<#)$()*7#)
#3.#)"$#?.&)%.**7#)1'A$.#')C"7F)%?&#?".&)*7"F)7")>"'(%"$
>#$7*=)47)A$'J)"$#?.&)
.()"$0$1).*1)*'%'((."$&B)?*%3.*0$*0)$()#7)1$("'0."1)#3')C.%#
)#3.#)"$#?.&)17'()
%3.*0').*1)'A7&A'=)<#)$()>"'%$('&B)$*)1'($0*'1)7").1)37%)A
."$.#$7*()#3.#)"$#?.&)
$()./&')#7)%3."#)>'"(7*.&)"'&.#$7*(3$>()J.B()1$CC'"'*#)C"7F)
J3.#)%?""'*#&B)
'2$(#=)<*)7?")(#7"B9)+7('>3)%.*)/')A$'J'1).()1'A$.#$*0)C"7F)
%?(#7F)$*)7"1'")
#7).%3$'A')3$()>."#$%?&.")(7%$.&)07.&=)
e'2#)+7('>3)"'%70*$_'();'*@.F$*)GS^YPOVPWI).*1)%$#'().)(3
7"#)/&'(($*0)
7A'")3$FY)K:.B)[71)(37J)B7?)C.A7"9)FB)(7*L)G ! !
X)S^YPN/Ib
.0.$*).)"$#?.&$_'1).%#=)<#)F.B)/')#3.#)#3')&.%H)7C).%H*7J
&'10$*0)#3')0$C#()$()
#3') C.?&#) 7C) +7('>3c() 'F7#$7*() ".#3'") #3.*) .) (#".#'0B)
#7) >&.B) J$#3) 3$()
/"7#3'"(9) /'%.?(') +7('>3) $() $FF'1$.#'&B) 7A'"%7F') .*1)
"?*() 7?#) 7C) #3')
"77F=)<*)#'"F()7C)&$#'"."B)#'%3*$R?'9)#3')(#7"B)?('()"$#?.&
)$*C'&$%$#B)#7)%"'.#')
.)%&$F.2)$*)#3')(#7"B=)

;?#) #3') C'.(#) 'A'*#?.&&B) %7*#$*?'(=) +7('>3) "'#?"*() J3'*)
3') $()
%7F>7('1) .*1) 1'%&."'(Y) K-'#) 7?#) #3') F'.&lL) G ! X)
S^Y^MI=) 43$()
%7FF.*1)%7F>&'F'*#() #3') $*$#$.&)1'%&.".#$7*)#3.#)/'0$*()
#3') &."0'")C'.(#)
>'"C7"F.*%')G$*)A=)MUI).*1)($0*.&().)*'J)(#.0')$*)#3')C'.(#=
)43')('.#$*0)7C)
#3')C'.(#)"'C&'%#()*.#$7*.&).*1)C.F$&$.&)"'&.#$7*(3$>(=)K
D0B>#$.*L)+7('>3)F?(#)
($#) ('>.".#') C"7F) #3') ,'/"'J(9) ($*%') F$2$*0) $() .*)
./7F$*.#$7*))
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
MQ)-
'')67*.&1)["$F'(9)K<*C'&$%$#7?()Z'"C7"F.*%'().*1)6$#?.&)E"
$#$%$(F9L)$*)3$()
/77H) <"32%6' 0$"3"+"/8>' 0%/.' I32)"./' "(' 73/' 1$%+3"+.B'
L//%&/' ;(' 73/' ?,.;$&) GE7&?F/$.Y)
g*$A'"($#B)7C)-7?#3)E."7&$*.)Z"'((9)MNN]I9)MNMVP]N=)-
'')T"$03#9)<"32%6'"('=%$$%3"-.9)
M]WVMMW).*1)>.(($F=)
)
56789:;16<1=>?8>@1AB8CDE78>A)R
1
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
G ! ! ! X)A=)^PI=)!()C7")#3')/"7#3'"(9)+7('>3)."".*0'()#3'F)$*)
#3'$")/$"#3)7"1'")GA=)^^I=LP)43$()$().)(?">"$(')#7)#3')/"7#3'
"(b37J)%7?&1)#3')

D0B>#$.*)7CC$%$.&)H*7J)#3$()1'#.$&)./7?#)#3'$")C.F$&Bj)
6$#?.&)3'"')$()?('1)#7)
%"'.#') FB(#'"B) .*1) C'."=) !() .) C$*.&) F.>>$*0) 7C)
"'&.#$7*(3$>(9) 3') 0$A'()
;'*@.F$*).)0"'.#'")>7"#$7*)7C)C771=)43$()/"7#3'")$()#3')B7?*
0'(#9).*1)3$()
>&.%').#)#3')#./&')"'C&'%#()#3$(9)/?#)3')$()37*7"'1)J$#3)#3')
0"'.#'(#)>7"#$7*=LQ))
43') C'.(#) '*1() J'&&9) .() $*1$%.#'1) /B) #3') (#.#'F'*#) K.*1)
#3'B) G#3')
/"7#3'"(I)1".*H).*1)07#)1"?*H)J$#3)3$FL)G ! !
X)A=)^SI=)8"$*H$*0)
3;' .M+.//) $() #3') #B>')7C)/'3.A$7") #3.#)F."H().) "$#?.&)
'A'*#) .()7>>7('1) #7)
'.#$*0)C7")#3')(.H')7C)*7?"$(3F'*#=)43')"$#?.&)(?%%''1'1)7A'
".&&) $*)17$*0)
(7%$.&&B)J3.#)$#)$*#'*1'19).#)&'.(#)C7")+7('>3)#3')37(#).*1)
C7")#3')*."".#7"=)
43')"'&.#$7*(3$>)7C)#3')/"7#3'"()#7)3$F)J.()1'C$*'1).*1)$*)>."
#$%?&.")#3')
"'&.#$7*(3$>)7C);'*@.F$*)#7)+7('>3).*1)#3')"'(#)7C)3$()/"7#3
'"(=))
<C)J')3.1)#$F').*1)(>.%'9)J')%7?&1)(#?1B) #3')J37&')".*0')7C)
C'.(#)
>.((.0'()$*)#3'),'/"'J);$/&').*1)'*0.0')$*).)%7F>.".#$A').*1)(B*#.
0F.#$%)
.*.&B($(9).()87?0&.()17'(=)T')%7?&1)?(')#3$().*.&B($()#7)#3"
7J)&$03#)7*)C7"F)
.*1)F'.*$*0)7C)#3')F'.&)(B(#'F)$*)/$/&$%.&)<(".'&)0'*'".&&B
=)T')%7?&1).&(7)
?(')#3$().>>"7.%3)#7)'&?%$1.#')>."#$%?&.")$*(#.*%'()7C)C'.(
#$*0).*BJ3'"')$*)
#3')%7*#$*??F)7C)'2.F>&'(=)!()*7#'1)'."&$'"9)#3$()#B>')7C).*
.&B($()J7?&1)/')

3'&>C?&)C7")#3')(#?1B)7C)(.%"$C$%'9)7*')%.#'07"B)7C)/$/&
$%.&)C'.(#$*0=)E'"#.$*)
%7FF7*)>3'*7F'*7&70$%.&)C'.#?"'()."')A$($/&')/'#J''*)+7('>3c
()C'.(#).*1)
(.%"$C$%'=)43'(')$*%&?1')./&?#$7*()>"'>.".#7"B)C7")C'.(#$*
0X).)(>'%$C$'1)(>.%')
C7") C'.(#$*09) $*)>."#$%?&.") #3')37?(')7C)
#3')7A'"&7"1X)0$A$*0).)0$C#) #7) #3')
7A'"&7"1X) .) /&'(($*0) C"7F) #3') 7A'"&7"1) G#3"7?03)
$*#'"F'1$."$'(IX) (>.%')
.(($0*F'*#() C7") '.#$*0)J$#3$*) #3') &."0'") "$#?.&)
(>.%')7")37?('9) $*%&?1$*0)
J3'"')#3')1'$#B9)>"$'(#(9).*1)&.B)>'7>&')."'X)>7"#$7*()('"A'1)
7")1?')%'"#.$*)
>'7>&'X).*1)'*@7B$*0)7*'('&C)'A'*)#7)(.#$'#B=)!)(#?1B)7C)('
%?&.")C'.(#() $*)
%7**'%#$7*) J$#3) (.%"$C$%') .&(7) (37J() ?>) "$#?.&)
F7#$C() #3.#) ."') *7#)
$FF'1$.#'&B) .>>."'*#) $*) /$/&$%.&) (.%"$C$%'9) .#) &'.(#)
$*) Z'*#.#'?%3.&)
>"'(%"$>#$7*(9).*1)>7$*#()#7)#3$*0()J')F$03#)'2>'%#)#7)C$*
1)$*)(.%"$C$%'=)<*)
#3')+7('>3)(#7"B9)C7")'2.F>&'9)#3')/"7#3'"()'*0.0')$*)7/'$(.*%'
=)T')%7?&1)
'2.F$*') 7#3'") #'2#(9) (?%3) .() #3') Z(.&F(9) C7") 'A$1'*%')
7C) #3$() .%#) $*)
%7**'%#$7*) J$#3) (.%"$C$%'=) :7"'7A'"9) #3') .%#?.&)
C'.(#$*0) /B) 3?F.*() $*)
Z'*#.#'?%3.&)>"'(%"$>#$7*()$().&F7(#).*)$*%$1'*#.&)C'.#?"')
7C)(.%"$C$%'=);?#)
+7('>3c()C'.(#)F.H'()?()#3$*H)#3.#)#3$()
$()F?%3)F7"')$F>7"#.*#)#3.*)#3')
>"'(%"$>#$7*()7C)5'A$#$%?(9)C7")'2.F>&'9)$*1$%.#'=)<#)F.
H'()#3')>"'(%"$>#$7*()
$*)5'A$#$%?()&77H)F7"')&$H')$*(#"?%#$7*()$*).)%77H/77H
)C7")C771)>"'>.".#$7*)

7C)#3')F'.&)7*)43.*H(0$A$*0=)43'B)#'&&)?()37J)#7)>"'>."')#
3')#?"H'B).*1)
7#3'")$#'F().*1)>'"3.>()'A'*)37J)#7)>"'('*#)#3'F)7*)#3')>&.#').*
1)#./&'9)
/?#)#3'B)(.B)&$##&')./7?#)37J)#3')7%%.($7*)$()%'&'/".#'1)/B)
>."#$%$>.*#().*1)
)
MU)*) #3') $F>7"#.*%') 7C) ('.#$*0) ."".*0'F'*#() $*)
"$#?.&9) ('');"?%')5$*%7&*9)
4"/+;2$/.'%()'3,.'0;(/3$2+3";(';@'I;+".3&)Ge'J)f7"HY)2C7"19)
MNWNI9)OQVWS9)M^MVMSM=)
MO) *) 37J) >7"#$7*() G.F7?*#) 7") R?.&$#BI) ."')
$*1$%.#$A') 7C) (7%$.&) ".*H9) ('')
5$*%7&*9)4"/+;2$/.9)WMVWS=)e7#').&(7)#3')>.((.0'()7*)>"$'
(#&B)>"'/'*1().*1)1$A$*')
>7"#$7*()G'=0=9)5'A$#$%?()MVOI).*1)$*)D&H.*.3c().*1),.**
.3c()(.%"$C$%')GM)-.F)MYQI=)
-'').&(7)e.*%B)+.B9)?,$;25,;23'N;2$'O.(.$%3";(/'A;$.-
.$>'I%+$"@"+.B'<.6"5";(B'%()'1%3.$("3&)
GE3$%.07Y)g*$A'"($#B)7C)E3$%.079)MNNPI9)O=)
)
G>BCD=>8C9I1:1G><C9CEC691 S
37J)#3')1$CC'"'*#)>."#$%$>.*#()
$*#'".%#9)(>'%$C$%.&&B)J3.#)J')J7?&1) &$H')#7)
H*7J)./7?#)$C)J')."')$*#'"'(#'1)$*)#"?')(7%$7&70$%.&).*.&B($
(=)#3'")C'.(#()$*)
#3');$/&')F.B)7>'*)#3')177")#7)$*#?$#$*0)#3')3?F.*)1B*.F$%(
)7C)(.%"$C$%'=)

87?0&.(c().>>"7.%3)%.*)/').>>&$'1)#7)"$#?.&)>3'*7F'*.)1$(#$
*%#)C"7F)
F'.&(=) 43'(') $*%&?1') #3$*0() &$H') 0$C#`0$A$*09)
/."0.$*$*09) /'(''%3$*09)
.(('F/&B9)>"7#'(#9)*.F$*0).*1)1'($0*.#$7*9)%?"($*0).*1)/&'((
$*09)>"7F$('()
.*1)7.#3(9)/$"#39)%7F$*0)7C).0'9)F.""$.0'9)C?*'".&).*1)F7?"*
$*0).%#$A$#$'(9)
3'.&$*09)F'F7"$.&)F.H$*09) %7?"#$*09) .*1) &7A'`F.H$*09)
#7) (.F>&') .)J$1')
".*0')7C)>3'*7F'*.=)<*)'.%3)%.('9).&&)"'&.#'1).%#$A$#$'(b"$
#?.&$_'1).*1)*7*`
"$#?.&$_'19)"'&$0$7?().*1)('%?&."bF?(#)/')(#?1$'1)#70'#3'")#
7)'&?%$1.#')#3')
%7?*#'">."#()$*)#3')(>'%#"?F).*1)#7)0'*'".#').*.&B#$%)R?'(#$
7*(=)
)
REL 2040: Great Books: The Bible and Western Culture
Fall 2013
Dr. Peter Bekins
Mary Douglas and Leviticus
The Priestly theology is reflected in the laws of Leviticus and
Numbers. These laws emphasize purity and
ritual cleanliness. For instance, certain animals are declared

“clean” while others are “unclean.” The
clean/unclean distinction is extended to many areas of life, and
previous interpreters have attempted,
usually in vain, to find logical reasons why certain actions are
clean or unclean.
Mary Douglas, however, applied an anthropological approach to
the laws which shifted the focus away
from their origins and towards their function in society. Her
thesis was that the function of ritual is to
define social boundaries and power relations.
For this assignment, you will read about Mary Douglas and
apply her approach to a specific law or set of
laws within the Holiness Code in Leviticus 17-26.
To find resources, you may search on key terms such as: ritual,
purity, clean, unclean, Leviticus, Mary
Douglas, etc. Make sure that your resources are both academic
and that they are interacting with
Douglas’ anthropological method. Further, avoid discussions of
the relationship between Leviticus and
the interpretation of the death of Jesus. Concentrate on the
function of purity within ancient Israelite
society.
Suggested Bibligraphy

Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger. London: Routledge, 1984.
K.C. Hanson, “Blood and Purity in Leviticus and Revelation,”
Listening: Journal of Religion and Culture
28 (1993) 215-30. [Available at
http://www.kchanson.com/ARTICLES/blood.html (Focus on his
summary of Douglas in relation to Leviticus, not Revelation)]
Ronald Hendel, “Mary Douglas and Anthropological
Modernism,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8/8
(2008) [on Pilot]
David P. Wright, “Deciphering a Definition: The Syntagmatic
Structural Analysis of Ritual in the Hebrew
Bible,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 8/12 (2008) [on Pilot]
[continued on following page]
Academic Commentaries on Leviticus
Baruch A. Levine. Leviticus. JPS Torah Commentary.
Philadelphia: JPS, 1989.
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 1-16. Anchor Bible, Vol. 3.
Doubleday, 1991.
Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17-22. Anchor Bible. Doubleday,
2000.

Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23-27. Anchor Bible. Doubleday,
2001.
Gordon J. Wenham, "The Book of Leviticus," The New
International Commentary on the Old Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Bible Dictionaries
David P. Wright and Hans Hübner, “Unclean and Clean,” in
Anchor Bible Dictionary, edited by David
Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 6:729-45.

The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures ISSN 1203-1542 http.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures ISSN 1203-1542 http.docx

Similar to The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures ISSN 1203-1542 http.docx (11)

More from cherry686017

More from cherry686017 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures ISSN 1203-1542 http.docx