2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publicaties
  3. Journal of Law, Religion and State
  4. Volume 3, Issue 1
  5. Artikel
Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2212-4810
  • E-ISSN: 2212-6465
file format pdf download PDF

Samenvatting

Common anthropological and structuralist approaches to Israelite purity law are often problematic. Disgust is a more promising explanation for the diverse impurities reflected in priestly texts. But not all impurities fit into a pattern of disgust equally well. Disgust language also characterizes impurities that ought not to evoke revulsion easily. I have previously suggested a transfer of emotional disgust from obvious triggers to objects that are clearly culture-specific by means of a secondary use of disgust language as value judgment. In the present article I explore this further with the help of cognitive linguistics. Conceptual metaphor theories as well as more elaborate blending models help clarify how disgust intrinsic to certain conceptions of impurity can be extended and transferred to others, which at times bear only slight resemblances. As a result, I suggest that disgust is the most comprehensive explanation for the wide variety of conceptions of impurity found in priestly legislation.

© 2014 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00301004
2014-11-24
2025-12-05
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/22126465/3/1/22124810_003_01_S004_text.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00301004&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1.  Lemos, supra note 6 (“Where There Is Dirt”), 294; cf. ibid., 274, 280.
  2.  Douglas, supra note 2, 51–71.
  3.  Milgrom, supra note 5, 650–652.
  4.  Lemos, supra note 6 (“Where There Is Dirt”), 273.
  5.  Lemos, supra note 6 (“Where There Is Dirt”), 274. For further discussion of such discrepancies, see Kazen, Issues of Impurity in Early Judaism (2010), 41–61.
  6.  Lemos, supra note 6 (“Where There Is Dirt”), 274.
  7.  Klawans, supra note 4; quotation at 158.
  8.  Wright, supra note 14; idem, “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity”, in G. A. Anderson and S. M. Olyan (eds.), Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (1991), 150–181.
  9.  Lemos, supra note 6 (“Where There Is Dirt”), 275–277, 279–280.
  10.  Büchler, supra note 19.
  11.  Hoffmann, supra note 19.
  12.  Klawans, supra note 4, 21–42.
  13.  Kazen, supra note 18 (Jesus), 200–222; idem, supra note 1 (Emotions), 25–28.
  14.  Kazen, supra note 1 (“Dirt”); idem, supra note 1 (Emotions), 20–31, 71–94.
  15.  Klawans, supra note 4, 32–36.
  16.  Kazen, supra note 18 (Jesus), 204–207.
  17.  Miller, supra note 38, 60–88.
  18.  Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley, supra note 38, 637.
  19.  Kazen, supra note 1 (“Dirt”); idem, supra note 1 (Emotions), 72–94.
  20.  Cf. Kazen, supra note 1 (Emotions), 78–79.
  21.  Kolnai, supra note 42, 52–62; William Miller, supra note 38, 38–59; Susan Miller, supra note 42, 47–58.
  22.  Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley, supra note 38, 641–642. Rozin’s category of animal-nature disgust has been questioned by Feinstein, who argues that “if the primary function of disgust were to conceal our similarity to animals, we would surely be more disgusted by relatively human-like creatures, such as primates and other ‘higher mammals,’ than by insects and worms” (supra note 23 (2010), 27).
  23.  Kazen, supra note 1 (Emotions), 81–89, 93–94; cf. Neusner, supra note 36, 11.
  24.  Kazen, supra note 1 (Emotions), 34–35, 82.
  25.  Cf. Lemos, supra note 6 (“Where There Is Dirt”), 290–292.
  26.  Klawans, supra note 4, 26–29.
  27.  Klawans, supra note 4, 67–91.
  28.  Kazen, supra note 18 (Jesus), 204–207.
  29.  Lakoff and Johnson, supra note 64 (Metaphors), 156.
  30.  Fauconnier and Turner, supra note 66, 17–57; Seanna Coulson and Todd Oakley, “Blending Basics”, 11 Cognitive Linguistics (2000), 175–196.
  31.  Coulson and Oakley, supra note 67, 142–143.
  32.  See Klawans, supra note 4, 35–36. Klawans regards this example of moral impurity as a metaphor, in contrast to other instances where he calls it “literal.”
  33.  Feinstein, supra note 23 (diss. 2010), 78.
  34.  See Kazen, supra note 49, forthcoming.
/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00301004
Loading
The Role of Disgust in Priestly Purity Law
JLRS 3, 62 (2014); https://doi.org/10.1163/22124810-00301004
/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00301004
/content/journals/10.1163/22124810-00301004
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Soort artikel: Research Article
Keyword(s): blending; cognitive linguistics; conceptual metaphor; disgust; impurity; priestly law

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

Dit is een verplicht veld
Graag een geldig e-mailadres invoeren
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error