How are you supposed to read Leviticus? It's really mind numbing, page after page of ludicrously detailed descriptions of different sacrifices-or types of animals ancient Israelites cant't eat and the weird reasons why. Then Aaron's sons get pwned for doing something ever so slightly wrong and Aaron isn't even allowed to grieve for them-it's their fault for fucking up(although the people can). I don't want to make fun of it or make light of it because it is a holy book but these are my impressions reading it and it's very hard for a modern reader to get anything out of it
>>18545944Are you retarded? Even from a purely secular atheistic viewpoint you can get "how did ancient near-easterners view justice and morality?"You can also contrast it to other ancient near/middle eastern law codes. You can analyze the language.You can compare how the Law is applied in the narrative portions of the Old Testament.etc etc.
>>18545949yeah Solitaire I guess I'm 'retarded' thanks for replying my guy
>>18545944Honestly, you can skip it (besides the two or three narrative parts) because the important laws are repeated in Deuteronomy, which puts them in much more juicy context. If you do decide to read it, you can take the symbolic approach and look for symbols and patterns that could be elaborating on salvation, man's relationship to God, God's relationship to man, man's balance between order and chaos etc. You can also take the scholarly approach, which at some points yields symbolic insights too, but leans much more heavily into archeology and philology. For the former, I recommend M.Pageau's Language of Creation, for the latter, M.Douglas' Leviticus as Literature. Both are smooth to read and quite fascinating.>>18545949Yeah I'm sure "if your bull kills someone for the second time, you gotta pay XYZ more than the first time" yields precious insight into ancient semitic ethics and language...
>>18545974>"if your bull kills someone for the second time, you gotta pay XYZ more than the first time" yields precious insight into ancient semitic ethics and language...But it does though?Anyways, if your bull, the same bull, kills someone twice, you are to be put to death That's the actual law. From a Christian standpoint we could say that people whose vicious dogs kill people ought to be put to death (there were no shitbulls back then so the principal dangerous animal was a bull). The moral is that you are liable for the danger *you put* other people in. You could even extrapolate it to workplace safety but I shall not at this time.
>>18546291>From a Christian standpoint we could say that people whose vicious dogs kill people ought to be put to death (there were no shitbulls back then so the principal dangerous animal was a bull). The moral is that you are liable for the danger *you put* other people in. You could even extrapolate it to workplace safety but I shall not at this time.
