Matthew Ian Ralph

PhD thesis:

Purity and Bloodguilt in the Deuteronomistic History

God's oracle to Samuel states that the iniquity of the Elide house can never be atoned (1 Sa 3:15, kpr hitpael). Yet Leviticus legislates for offerings whose purpose is precisely to cleanse the sins of priests (Lev 4:3-12).

In general, how Priestly are the purity concerns in the Deuteronomistic history? Recent advances in understanding of purity in Pentateuchal material have been impressively consolidated and set out in Milgrom’s celebrated Leviticus commentary (which itself draws together sociological insights from Mary Douglas) and Israel Knohls’ study on P/H. It is now time for a purity-framed reading of the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings), engaging with David Shepherd’s recent work on bloodguilt in Samuel. Such a reading would ask to what extent our new understanding of purity helps to illuminate these texts, and Noth’s original Deuteronomistic History hypothesis and whether it could contribute to the ongoing debates about dating this material.

Who or what inspired you to pursue your research interests?

I was inspired by engaging properly with Leviticus, after discovering Milgrom's seminal work on the purity system (clarified in Jonathan Klawans' excellent monographs), and his respectful detractors (especially Hyam Maccoby). The debate about which operant purity system(s) we see in effect in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible sparked a wider interest in issues of purity and "guilt by association" in Western culture, especially in an age of "hyper-moral" (Andy Byers’ term) media/social-media coverage, where narratives about forgiveness or reconciliation are largely absent and where the accused has little option but to disappear from public life.