Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Rilke und die Weltliteratur

Rilke und die Weltliteratur BOOK REVIEWS/263 accepted and adumbrated by Jacob Milgrom in his magisterial Anchor Bible edition of Leviticus 1-16. Knohl’s and Milgrom’s position did not, however, become the consensus, and the debate continues. All of this philological scholarship Douglas sweeps aside, returning to the older theory that the book was edited after the Babylonian exile and, more importantly, that it is a coherent whole. She thus focuses on the structure of the book as a definite plan of the editors, rather than as an arbitrary stringing together of sources. This is, in fact, how the literary school has treated other works in the Bible: without denying that they consist of various strata from different historical periods and theological positions, these readers consider the texts’ final redactors as authors in their own right, who fashioned complex and subtle narratives out of the sources at their disposal. Following her earlier method, Douglas assumes that in Leviticus the body (both human and animal) is a cosmic symbol, while in Deuteronomy, a much more political book, it is a symbol of the body politic. She regards Leviticus as a utopian, theological book, an ideal law constructed by the priests, who have little interest in http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Comparative Literature Duke University Press

Rilke und die Weltliteratur

Gillespie, Gerald
Comparative Literature , Volume 53 (3) – Jan 1, 2001
Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/duke-university-press/rilke-und-die-weltliteratur-xgqsoOCQjC

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Duke University Press
Copyright
Copyright 2001 by University of Oregon
ISSN
0010-4124
eISSN
1945-8517
DOI
10.1215/-53-3-265
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

BOOK REVIEWS/263 accepted and adumbrated by Jacob Milgrom in his magisterial Anchor Bible edition of Leviticus 1-16. Knohl’s and Milgrom’s position did not, however, become the consensus, and the debate continues. All of this philological scholarship Douglas sweeps aside, returning to the older theory that the book was edited after the Babylonian exile and, more importantly, that it is a coherent whole. She thus focuses on the structure of the book as a definite plan of the editors, rather than as an arbitrary stringing together of sources. This is, in fact, how the literary school has treated other works in the Bible: without denying that they consist of various strata from different historical periods and theological positions, these readers consider the texts’ final redactors as authors in their own right, who fashioned complex and subtle narratives out of the sources at their disposal. Following her earlier method, Douglas assumes that in Leviticus the body (both human and animal) is a cosmic symbol, while in Deuteronomy, a much more political book, it is a symbol of the body politic. She regards Leviticus as a utopian, theological book, an ideal law constructed by the priests, who have little interest in

Journal

Comparative Literature – Duke University Press

Published: Jan 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.