cba jesus and purity 1

THE HISTORICAL JESUS AND PURITY

John P. Meier

The University of Notre Dame

At the end of Volume Three of A Marginal Jew, I noted that I had purposely kept the four most intractable problems about the historical Jesus until the end, namely, Volume Four.i

Unfortunately, like Caiaphas (John 11:51), I was prophesying unaware of the full truth of what I was saying, especially in regard to the historical Jesus and the Jewish Law.ii The question of

Jewish purity laws around the turn of the era has alone taken two years out of my life. The resulting chapter, some 230 pages, would not exactly lend itself to light summer reading for the

CBA task force on the historical Jesus.

What to do? Granted the nature of a “task force,” which presupposes a good amount of communal work, discussion, and debate, I have decided to adopt an unusual format for this paper. Instead of laying out and defending all my opinions in detail, I will (metaphorically speaking) nail the equivalent of 95 Theses onto the door of the monastic church of St. John’s

Abbey and then ask for reactions from the task force—preferably not burning at the stake.

Like the format of the medieval thesis, which Martin Luther was reflecting in his 95

Theses, these theses propose and briefly explain positions I champion, without laying out all the reasoning behind each thesis. Of their nature, then, these theses are meant to invite discussion cba jesus and purity 2

and debate, both in order to tease out their rationale and also, hopefully, to offer corrections to

my views when they are askew. Since exactly 95 Theses would only resurrect the practical

problem of length, permit me to boil down my positions on Jesus and purity laws to a mere 15

theses.iii

1. Thesis One. One of the reasons for the difficulty of treating purity rules is the ferment in

Jewish scholarship in the wake of the massive work of Jacob Milgrom in his three-volume

commentary on Leviticus, to say nothing of his allied books and articles. Jewish experts like

Jonathan Klawans, Hannah Harrington, Hyam Maccoby, Charolotte Fonrobert, and Christine

Hayes argue about the purity laws among themselves as well as criticize previous research, both

Jewish and Christian. It is no wonder that anthropologists like Mary Douglas have changed their positions on Jewish purity rules in light of all this recent work by Jewish scholars. It is imperative that any quester for the historical Jesus at least listen in on the Jewish conversation.

2. Thesis Two. Without canonizing any one recent Jewish scholar, I think a combination of the

work of Klawans and Hayes provides a serviceable pedagogical tool or heuristic structure for

understanding Old Testament purity laws. Accordingly, I would distinguish four types of

impurity in the Old Testament:

(a) Ritual impurity, usually a temporary and often unavoidable condition, is by no means

sinful or evil in itself. It results from the normal cycle of human life: birth, sexual activity,

disease, and death. These powerful, liminal events need to be cordoned off from, separated

from, the realm of the divine and holy, from the God who is himself the total antithesis of the cba jesus and purity 3

birth-death cycle. In order to pass from the state of ritual impurity to the state of purity that allowed access to the temple, certain ritual actions were required, notably various ablutions.

(b) Moral impurity, in the legal sense found in the Pentateuch, shares the same Hebrew

vocabulary of “clean” ( __hôr) and “unclean” ( __m__) as does ritual impurity. Moral impurity

refers to certain heinous sins like murder, idolatry, and incest. Such a sin is a tô__bâ, an

“abomination.” Unlike ritual impurity, moral impurity is eminently avoidable; and, unlike ritual impurity, it is not communicated to another by touch, nor can it be removed by ordinary ritual actions like ablutions. Since moral impurity defiles the land of Israel and/ or the temple, and since, if not dealt with, it could ultimately cause the people of Israel to be expelled from their land, the perpetrator must be “cut off” from the people. (One should note as an aside that, especially in the prophets and psalms, purity or impurity is extended by way of metaphor to include any sort of moral or immoral action or attitude. Immoral actions that are “impure” in this metaphorical sense do not have the legal effects and do not demand the precise legal remedies of ritual and moral impurity in the strict sense.)

(c) A third category that floats between ritual and moral impurity is the list of animals prohibited for use as food. The total prohibition of eating, e.g., pork, refers to a voluntary and perfectly avoidable act. To eat pork is tô__bâ, thus pushing this kind of impurity in the direction

of moral impurity. Yet it is never claimed that eating such food defiles the land or the sanctuary,

and no precise punishment like being cut off is prescribed. Indeed, no remedy for the act is

mentioned. The food laws thus constitute a legal corpus unto themselves within the purity laws.

(d) A new type of impurity, genealogical impurity, appears in the Book of Ezra after the exile. Genealogical impurity results from intermarriage between Gentiles and any Israelite. cba jesus and purity 4

Previously, the prohibition of intermarriage held only for priests. This innovation became a major point of contention among Jews around the turn of the era.

Granted the bewildering complexity of the various purity laws, it is unlikely that any one theory from the social sciences concerning the origin and function of these laws can explain the whole range of these practices.

3. Thesis Three. The purity laws were not fixed immutably in stone in the Pentateuch. They continued to develop and became hotly contested topics in Judaism around the turn of the era.

Some zealous groups, notably Qumran and the Essenes, sought to extend and intensify purity rules, as can be seen, for example, in the Rule of the Community, the Damascus Document, the

Temple Scroll, and the many fragmentary purity rules found in Cave Four at Qumran. The

Pharisees likewise developed special purity regulations for their movement, though not to the same degree as the Essenes. Apparently other Jews, especially in the Diaspora, tended to limit purity observances to what was strictly enjoined by the Torah and to accommodate them to the lives of ordinary people living in a sea of Gentiles.

4. Thesis Four. It is within this ongoing debate that the views of the historical Jesus on purity must be located. However, when we focus on the Four Gospels, we are struck almost immediately by a surprising fact. If we restrict ourselves to sayings that most likely go back to the historical Jesus, what stands out is his silence on most purity laws. Genealogical impurity is not discussed. As for moral impurity, Jesus, like the Old Testament prophets and psalms, uses the language of pure and impure metaphorically for good and evil actions and attitudes in cba jesus and purity 5 general. But when it comes to moral impurity in the strict sense of murder, idolatry, and sexual sins like incest, Jesus never treats the problem of the specific impurity that arises from these

“abominations.” We are left, then, with the two categories of ritual impurity and the food laws.

Even here, there is only one passage of notable length on these two topics, namely, Mark 7:1-23 and its Matthean parallel. Beyond that, we have only a few scattered sayings touching on disparate purity issues.

5. Thesis Five. It is no wonder that Mark 7:1-23 has generated a welter of lengthy articles and monographs. Almost all commentators would admit that we have here a number of blocks of tradition on different subjects that a redactor has welded together. The pericope divides into two major parts. The first half, a dispute story, is held together by the theme of criticizing the tradition of the elders; it stretches from v 1 to v 13. The first unit of Part One, vv 1-5, recounts the question of the Pharisees and scribes about Jesus’ disciples eating bread with defiled, i.e., unwashed hands contrary to the tradition of the elders. The second unit, vv 6-13, narrates Jesus’ two replies.

In the first subunit of this reply, vv 6-8, Jesus answers by quoting Isa 29:13, accusing his opponents of neglecting the commandment of God while holding to the tradition of men. In the second subunit, vv 9-13, Jesus replies by quoting Exod 20:12 and 21:17 and by setting the obligation of honoring one’s parents over against the legal subterfuge of Qorban. In the center of the pericope lies the pivot of vv 14-15, in which Jesus teaches the crowd the key aphorism that nothing outside a person can defile that person by entering within; only what comes out of a person defiles that person. cba jesus and purity 6

Then, in the second half of the pericope, vv 17-23, Jesus explains in private to his disciples his aphorism on defilement. In the first unit, vv 17-18a, the inquiring disciples are rebuked for their lack of understanding. In the second unit, vv 18b-19, the first half of the aphorism is explained: nothing from outside can defile a person because it simply passes through the stomach into the latrine. The narrator adds at this point that, in saying this, Jesus made all foods clean. In the third subunit, vv 20-23, the second half of the aphorism is explained: things from within a person do defile the person. This point is illustrated with a list of vices. Under the general rubric of “evil thoughts,” the list catalogues six evil actions in the plural and then six evil actions or attitudes in the singular. The entire pericope ends in v 23 with the generalizing conclusion: “All these evil things come forth from within and defile a person.” Thus, Mark 7:1-

23 is a bundle of disparate subjects wrapped up in one large pericope.

6. Thesis Six. One reason why we do not feel completely overwhelmed by a chaotic mass of heterogeneous material when we read 7:1-23 is that Mark, or perhaps a pre-Marcan redactor, has done a remarkable job stitching together the separate units and subunits into a literary, if not a theological, whole. Quite obvious to any Marcan scholar is a typical Marcan pattern that acts as an overarching grid: (a) Jesus delivers some public teaching, (b) then he withdraws into privacy, where he first rebukes the disciples for their lack of understanding and then explains his teaching to them alone. Helping to tie these two major parts together are a number of verbal links, such as koinos (“defiled”) and anthr_pos (“human being”). Verbal links within units include phrases like “the Pharisees,” “tradition,” “annul,” “abandon,” “commandments,” “honor,” “eat,” “come in and come out,” “defile,” and “understanding,” as well as the lack thereof. cba jesus and purity 7

Alongside these verbal links are signs of redactional activity, be it of Mark or of a pre-

Marcan author. These include intrusive parenthetical explanations and asides, generalizing or universalizing statements sprinkled with “all” or “many,” the tendency to string together a series of verbs of saying, and finally Mark’s habit of saying things “in two’s” (Marcan duality).

Quite clearly, then, Mark 7:1-23 is, as it stands, a complicated Christian composition that has probably gone through a number of stages of tradition and redaction. For simplicity’s sake, in what follows I will speak of “Mark” or “the redactor,” fully realizing that there may be more than one level of redaction. But since our concern is what, if anything, goes back to the historical Jesus, distinguishing the various stages of redaction is not of primary importance.

Once an element of the pericope is judged redactional, by definition it does not come from the historical Jesus, which is our only concern here.

7. Thesis Seven. Granted the heterogeneous nature of the different units that have been stitched together, it is best to sift each unit in turn to test whether it contains an authentic saying of Jesus.

Ordinarily, one would simply proceed in the order in which the units have been laid out by

Mark. However, the first unit, vv 1-5, presents us with a special case, compared to other dispute stories. In vv 1-5, Jesus neither speaks nor acts. The unit is entirely taken up with the actions and words of the Pharisees and scribes, who react to actions of some of the disciples. Inserted into vv 3 + 4 is a lengthy parenthesis describing the supposed purity practices of “all the Jews”— an obviously polemical salvo from the Christian narrator.

Jesus begins to speak only in the second unit (vv 6-13); but from there on in, the rest of vv 6-23 is taken up almost entirely with the direct discourse of Jesus and Jesus alone. Since our cba jesus and purity 8

quest is for the historical Jesus and not the historical Mark or his predecessors, I think it best to

begin with the second unit in v 6, move through all the subsequent units, and return at the end of

the process to vv 1-5. At that point, we will be in a better position to evaluate this first unit.

8. Thesis 8. As we have seen, the second unit of the pericope (vv 6-13) is made up of two

replies by Jesus. The first reply to the Pharisees’ question is made up almost entirely of a four-

line quotation from Isa 29:13 (= Mark 7:6b-7), followed by a brief application of the quotation to the tradition of the Pharisees. Some critics would a priori brand any Old Testament citation in

the mouth of Jesus as a Christian creation. However, considering that Jesus was, if nothing else,

a Jewish teacher who engaged in public disputes with various Jewish groups, I find the idea that

he never cited the Jewish Scriptures in his arguments highly unlikely.

And yet, we are dealing here with a special case of Scripture citation. The form of Isa

29:13 used in Mark 7:6-7 is not from the Masoretic Text (MT); indeed, it is not found in any

other textual tradition of Isaiah in Hebrew or Aramaic that is known to us. The wording Jesus

employs is found only in the Septuagint (LXX). Now, in itself, this proves nothing. The

historical Jesus could have cited Isaiah in Hebrew or Aramaic, and Mark would have naturally

used the LXX of Isaiah when he formulated the story in Greek. The problem, though, is that, in

this specific case, the LXX version alone contains changes in the wording and line of thought

that are essential to Jesus’ argument against the Pharisees.

For example, in the MT, Isaiah is criticizing the people of Israel in general for engaging

in the religious routine of temple liturgy, set up by kings and priests (“a commandment of men

learned by rote”). The prescribed prayers are duly recited with their mouths, but their hearts are cba jesus and purity 9 far from God. While there are divergences from the MT in the Isaiah texts of Qumran and in the later Aramaic Targum of Isaiah, the grammatical structure and theological message are basically the same. By contrast, there is a notable shift in structure and meaning in the LXX. For instance, what is merely an initial statement of cause in the MT, “Because this people honors me with their lips...” becomes the main clause (as is the case in the LXX) and indeed the whole point at issue in Mark

In addition, Mark uses a shortened form of Isa 29:13 precisely to focus on the last clause of the verse, the clause that diverges most notably in its LXX form from the Hebrew. In the

LXX, the ones criticized worship in vain because they teach commandments of men (i.e., mere human commandments). Hence what was in the Hebrew simply a denunciation of mechanical, routine liturgy in the Jerusalem temple now expands in the LXX into a denunciation of merely human teaching. By doing this, the LXX implicitly introduces the idea of a group of people who do the teaching within the whole of the people of Israel, while the whole people are the sole object of Isaiah’s rebuke in the Hebrew. Mark proceeds in v 7 to reformulate the LXX’s inventive translation. Instead of the LXX’s somewhat awkward “teaching commandments of men and teachings,” Mark teases out an explicit opposition that is useful for his polemic. Mark’s reworking of the LXX might be translated paraphrastically: “...teaching as [divine] teachings the commandments of [mere] men.” It is precisely this creative LXX translation, as reworked by

Mark, that Jesus seizes upon as he applies the Isaiah text to the Pharisees in v 8: “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” Isaiah, says Jesus, uttered an exact prophecy of the Pharisees’ distortion of God’s commandment by human tradition.

The problem, then, is clear. Jesus’ line of argument works only if Jesus has as his cba jesus and purity 10

scriptural starting point the form of Isa 29:13 found only in the LXX and then reworked by

Mark, a form not present in any Hebrew or Aramaic text. Our suspicions are only confirmed

when we notice that a Christian polemic in Col 2:20-21 also reworks the LXX form of Isa 29:13

to pursue a similar line of argument. Apparently, the LXX form of Isa 29:13 circulated among

early Christians as a proof text for rejecting purity rules, especially those concerned with

touching or eating food. Interestingly, the next verse, Isa 29:14, is cited by Paul in 1 Cor 1:19

and is alluded to by Matthew in Matt 11:25. In sum, the most likely conclusion is that the

second unit of Mark 7, vv 6-8, is a Christian creation.

9. Thesis 9. Our decision that Jesus’ first reply in vv 6-8 is a Christian composition has

immediate consequences for the second reply in vv 9-13, the second subunit. In the present

structure of 7:1-23, vv 9-13 function as the concrete example illustrating the general principle

asserted in vv 6-8. The Pharisees are accused of using the institution of Qorban to supersede the

basic obligation in the Decalogue of honoring one’s father and mother. In both vocabulary and content, the framing verses of Jesus’ second reply betray Mark’s redactional hand. Mark neatly slides from the vocabulary of “the commandments of men” to “the tradition of men,” and finally to “your tradition” to emphasize that the practice of Qorban is a concrete fulfillment of what

Isaiah prophesied concerning the Pharisees’ teaching. It would appear, then, that, at least in the present form and setting of this subunit, vv 9-13 is a formulation of a Christian redactor. Verses

9-13 are bound by rhetorical hoops of steel to the argument from Isa 29:13 in the first subunit.

This does not mean, however, that the argument about Qorban, isolated from Mark’s cba jesus and purity 11 pericope, might not reflect some halakic teaching of the historical Jesus. The core saying in vv

10-12, unlike the LXX text of Isa 29:13, fits very well into the time and place of Jesus. Various

Jewish groups around the turn of the era were engaged in lively debate over oaths and vows, including the problem of conflicting obligations arising from them. Indeed, the Damascus

Document in 16:14-20 may condemn the subterfuge of vowing one’s food to sacred use in order to keep it from a neighbor in need. That the actual word qôrban circulated in Aramaic around the time of Jesus is now testified to by an Aramaic inscription on an ossuary dated from the end of the first century B.C.E. The Aramaic inscription actually echoes the terminology of Mark

7:11. The inscription speaks of what might be to another person’s profit or use, and then forbids such use because of a prior dedication to God. The institution and the word qôrban were apparently so prominent in first-century Judaism that twice in his works, Josephus explains the institution, each time using the word korban and then translating it, as Mark does, by “gift.”

Philo likewise knows the institution and holds to the irrevocability of a vow even when it works to the detriment of members of one’s family. As late as 200 C.E., the Mishna preserves various contending views on Qorban and on the grounds that would justify the annulling of a vow that a man had made to the detriment of his father and mother. The trajectory of all these texts on

Qorban or vows places Jesus’ pronouncement on Qorban squarely within the time period when the issue was debated among Palestinian Jews. Realistically, either the core teaching in Mark

7:10-12 goes back to the historical Jesus or the argument is a creation of Aramaic-speaking

Christian Jews in Palestine during the first few decades of the Christian movement’s existence.

While either explanation is possible, the absence of any concern or debate about the relatively obscure topic of Qorban anywhere else in early Christian literature inclines me to think that the cba jesus and purity 12

saying about Qorban comes from Jesus himself. The upshot is a confirmation of our portrait of

the halakic Jesus, who engaged in legal debate not only on major issues like divorce and the

sabbath, but even on minor questions like the abuse of Qorban. It also confirms our supposition

that Jesus at times cited the Scriptures in his arguments.

10. Thesis 10. As we come to the second half of the pericope, we should realize that, in

weighing the authenticity of the sayings in vv 15-23, everything hangs on the authenticity of v

15. For, if the two-part aphorism on what defiles in v 15 comes from the historical Jesus, then it

may well be that at least the core of the two-part explanation in vv 18b-23 comes from him as

well. If, however, v 15, the font from which the whole second half of the pericope springs, is not

authentic, it becomes extremely difficult to defend the authenticity of vv 18b-23. Hence, in what

follows, we must focus on v 15, a two-part aphorism that reads:

15a: There is nothing outside a human being that, by entering into him, can defile him,

15b: but those things that come out of a human being are the things that defile him.

11. Thesis 11. There are good arguments in favor of accepting Mark 7:15 as authentic: (a)

Verse 15 is a disturbing, subversive aphorism cast in two-part antithetical parallelism, a style

typical of Jesus’ sayings. (b) Discontinuity from the Judaism of Jesus’ day—so much of which elevated and expanded purity rules—likewise argues for authenticity. (c) At the same time, within 1st-century Judaism, Jesus’ aphorism is intelligible in the mouth of a Jewish prophet.

For Jesus’ declaration should not be understood as absolute or exclusive in the sense of “not X, but Y,” but rather in a relative sense, namely, “Y is more important than X.” This Semitic cba jesus and purity 13

rhetorical style, known as dialectical negation, is famously exemplified in Hosea 6:6: “I desire

mercy and not sacrifice.” Hosea is not anticipating 18th-century Enlightenment religion. He is

rather setting priorities: mercy toward one’s neighbor is much more important than cultic

sacrifice, though the latter is not totally rejected. Hence, in Mark 7:15, Jesus is not totally

rejecting the food laws but is rather emphasizing the much greater importance of avoiding moral

impurity. (d) This point is supported by a general pattern in Jesus’ antithetical statements, a

pattern called end stress. The emphasis in two-part statements usually falls on the second half;

therefore, the emphasis in v 15 is on moral defilement coming from within. (e) Some scholars

support this “mild” interpretation of the saying by claiming that we have the original form of

Jesus’ aphorism not in Mark 7:15 but rather in Matt 15:11, which has a softer tone: “Not what

enters into the mouth defiles a human being, but what comes out of the mouth, that defiles a

human being.” Notice the absence of Mark’s fierce, emphatic wording: “There is nothing...that can defile....” Moreover, some claim that this Matthean form enjoys multiple attestation since

we find a supposedly independent form of the saying in the Coptic Gospel of Thomas (end of

logion 14): “What goes into your mouth will not defile you, but what comes out of your mouth,

that is what will defile you.” This Thomas form is indeed very close to that of Matt 15:11.

And, as noted already, this milder form is perfectly intelligible in the mouth of a Jewish prophet,

be he Hosea or Jesus.

12. Thesis 12. In my opinion, however, still weightier arguments favor the view that Mark 7:15

does not go back to Jesus but is a creation of the early church. The arguments become at this

point quite complicated and technical. Permit me to give simply a brief outline of them: (a) cba jesus and purity 14

Many antithetical statements in the Bible do have the exclusive sense of “not X but Y.” For example, Deut 5:13 commands: “Six days you shall do all your work, but on the seventh day you shall not do any work.” The same absolute antithesis is found in sayings in Mark, e.g., 2:17 (“It is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick) and 10:45 (“The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve...”). Hence, while Mark 7:15 might be interpreted as dialectical negation,

that interpretation is by no means necessary. One must attend to the content of the individual

saying.

(b) Likewise, end stress is not an invariable rule in the sayings of Jesus. In the case of

Mark 7:15, insisting on end stress misses the slightly unbalanced nature of the logion. The first

half of the verse makes a sweeping, emphatic statement about the impossibility of an event:

“There is nothing outside a human being that...can defile him.” This emphasis is not paralleled

in the second half, which is comparatively bland: “Those things that come out of a human being

are the things that defile him.” With the emphasis clearly on the first half of the verse, its

sweeping nature is more naturally understood as absolute rather than relative.

(c) The claim that Matt 15:11 plus G. Thomas 14 represent an independent and indeed

original form of the logion ignores the telltale fingerprints of Matthean redaction that pervade

Matthew’s reworking of Mark 7:1-23 in Matt 15:1-20. The same consistent Matthean style and

theology that is found throughout Matthew’s redactional reworking of Mark 7 is found likewise

in his reworking of 7:15. Matt 15:11 betrays the same softening tone as well as the same

tendency to tighten and balance material that Matthew employs elsewhere in his redaction of

Mark 7 and, indeed, in his redaction of Mark in general. Within Matt 15:11 itself, Matthew’s

redactional hand is seen both in the introduction of the characteristically Matthean word “mouth” cba jesus and purity 15

(stoma) and in the abbreviation of the Marcan logion to create greater balance between the two halves of the saying. The presence of the Matthean “into your mouth” and “out of your mouth” in the two halves of the aphorism, the resumptive “that” in the second half of the saying, and the carefully balanced parallelism all reveal Matthew’s fingerprints on Matt 15:11. And the same fingerprints are found on Thomas 14—the academic dogma of Thomas’ independence of the

Synoptics notwithstanding.

Thus, we conclude that Mark 7:15 is the earliest available form of the logion, a form that emphatically and absolutely declares that no food can defile a person.

13. Thesis 13. Granted this conclusion about the original form of the saying, Mark 7:15 most likely does not come from the historical Jesus. If authentic, this logion would mean that with one fell stroke, Jesus abolished a whole corpus of purity laws in the Torah, laws that affected not just some Jews now and then, as with divorce, not just all Jews every seventh day, as with the sabbath, but rather all Jews every day of their lives. For purity laws set up some of the clearest and best known boundaries between Jews and Gentiles, boundaries inculcated in the way Jews handled one of the most basic experiences of life, eating. When one realizes the shattering impact this logion would have on Jewish existence, the reasons for questioning its authenticity become clear:

(a) To begin with, unlike sayings on divorce and the sabbath, Mark 7:15 enjoys no multiple attestation. Apart from it, nothing in the whole of the New Testament states that Jesus, during his public ministry, revoked the food laws.

(b) Moreover, unlike Jesus’ prohibition of voluntary fasting, which had a visible impact cba jesus and purity 16 on what his disciples did, nowhere in the Gospels do Jesus and his disciples eat forbidden food.

(c) In fact, strange to say, unlike so many of Jesus’ pronouncements and actions, Mark

7:15 calls forth no response from Jesus’ opponents or the crowds of followers. In other words, the total lack of reverberation of this astounding revocation of key Mosaic commandments raises serious questions about its authenticity.

(d) This lack of reverberation in the Gospels is matched by a lack of reverberation of

Mark 7:15 in the history of the first Christian generation. Both Paul and the Acts of the Apostles struggle with the question of whether Gentile converts should observe the food laws. For all the differences in their approaches, neither Paul nor Luke nor apparently anyone else in the first

Christian generation thought to appeal to what Jesus said on the subject. To claim that Mark

7:15 is authentic, we have to suppose that, after being spoken by the historical Jesus, this logion went mysteriously underground, remained unknown to Paul and seemingly anyone else involved in the food controversy that wracked first-generation Christianity, only to resurface in Mark’s

Gospel and then never to be heard from again in the New Testament. In particular, we have to suppose that when the famous food fight broke out at Antioch between Peter and Paul, neither

Peter nor Barnabas nor anyone who had shared in the public ministry of Jesus remembered

Jesus’ shocking revocation of the food laws, despite its obvious relevance to the present dispute.

This lack of a Wirkungsgeschichte in the first Christian generation is perhaps the most weighty argument against the authenticity of Mark 7:15. This decision against authenticity relieves us, happily, of the burden of examining in detail Mark 7:17-23. If the key statement in Mark 7:15 is a Christian creation, then it follows necessarily that so is the extended explanation and application of the logion in vv 17-23. cba jesus and purity 17

14. Thesis Fourteen. The reason for my initial (and strange) strategy of postponing consideration of Mark 7:1-5 to the end of our treatment should by now be clear. Our examination of the pericope has shown that, with the possible exception of the stray tradition

about Qorban in vv 10-12, the whole of vv 6-23 is the product of Christian tradition and Marcan

redaction. But, as they now stand in chap. 7 of Mark, vv 1-5 exist and have meaning only as an

introduction to the dispute story that continues in vv 6-23—verses that do not come from the

historical Jesus. And, apart from the connections Mark has redactionally created (or the

connections created by imaginative modern exegetes), Mark 7:1-5 could hardly act as the direct

introduction to the Qorban saying in vv 10-12. Thus, there is no historical Jesus tradition for

which vv 1-5 can serve as the introduction. In other words, if vv 6-23 are inauthentic, by

inescapable logic the verses that have as their only reason for being the function of serving as the

entrance door into vv 6-23 are likewise inauthentic.

This decision is further supported by the fact that the dispute in vv 1-5 presupposes that

at least the Pharisees and some scribes held that handwashing before ordinary meals was

obligatory for Jewish lay people. No such prescription can be documented in any pre-70

literature emanating from Palestinian Judaism. The first indisputable attestation of such an

obligation is found in the Mishna tractate Yadayim; and, even there, the prescription is accompanied by countervailing opinions. Indeed, scattered opinions that handwashing before meals is not obligatory are found later on in the Tosepta, the Jerusalem Talmud, and even in

Numbers Rabbah. In brief, both the composition-history of Mark 7:1-23 and the history of the development of Jewish purity rules indicate that almost all of the material in Mark 7:1-23 comes cba jesus and purity 18

from the early church, not from Jesus.

15. Thesis Fifteen. Without the bright light and interpretive framework given us by Mark 7:1-

23, the few scattered references to ritual purity in Jesus’ other sayings and actions do not tell us

very much. Perhaps more significant still is the silence of both the Jewish Jesus and the

Christian narrator when it comes to many purity issues that would be of grave concern to most

Palestinian Jews of Jesus’ day. For example:

(a) Corpse impurity was the most virulent of all forms of ritual impurity. It was

contracted by anyone who touched a corpse, was in the same room as a corpse, or walked

through a burial field. Yet in the stories of Jesus raising the dead, the problem of corpse

impurity simply isn’t on the evangelists’ radar screen. A woe against the scribes and Pharisees

that mockingly compares them to tombs or graves that defile is found in both Matt 23:27-28 and

Luke 11:44. But even if the saying, whose precise wording cannot be reconstructed, comes from

Jesus, it tells us nothing specific about his own views on or observance of corpse impurity.

(b) A somewhat similar Q saying in Matt 23:25-26 || Luke 11:39-41 excoriates the

Pharisees for cleaning the outside of the cup while inside the Pharisees themselves are full of

greed and evil. By contrast, Jesus emphasizes the priority of inner cleanness over outer

cleanness. Even if authentic, the saying tells us little about Jesus’ own view of purity laws. In a way similar to the saying about the tomb-like Pharisees, this logion uses the issue of ritual purity on a metaphorical level and in a satirical way to inculcate the importance of inner, moral purity.

(c) The case of the woman with the flow of blood in Mark 5:25-34 is, properly speaking, not a case of menstrual purity (niddâ), but of a woman with an abnormal and irregular genital cba jesus and purity 19

discharge (z_bâ). Now the purity laws of the Pentateuch (Lev 15:25-30) do not explicitly state

that a z_bâ communicates ritual impurity simply by touching someone—or, a fortiori, in the case of Jesus, someone’s clothing. Unless we suppose that ordinary Galilean peasants knew and observed the more rigorous rules of the Essenes or anticipated the h_l_kâ of the later rabbis,

there is no reason to think that either the woman or Jesus thought that impurity was being

communicated by her touching his garment.

(d) Akin to the purity rules for a z_bâ were the rules for a niddâ, a menstruating woman.

Interest in this purity question apparently increased around the turn of the era until it received a whole tractate in the Mishna, Niddah. In stark contrast to this development is the total silence of

Jesus and the Gospels on this question. Let us remember that the itinerant Jesus had in his

entourage not only a group of men, most of whom presumably experienced regular seminal

emissions—along with ritual impurity—during sleep, but also a group of devoted women, many

of whom would presumably be menstruating at various times of the month. When one considers

the problem of mutual ritual contamination by men and women living in close quarters on the

road, with no purifying pool available for total immersion, the complete silence of Jesus and the

evangelists on these purity issues is striking. When we put this together with the silence about

corpse impurity, we begin to get the impression that Jesus was simply not interested in the

questions of ritual purity that consumed the interest of many pious Jews of his time.

(e) The same silence about purity is met in the story of Jesus touching the leper in Mark

1:40-45, but here we may have a situation similar to that of the z_bâ. The laws governing

leprosy (actually, various skin diseases, not Hansen’s disease) in Leviticus 13–14 do not

explicitly state that a person who touches a leper is rendered unclean. Even the halakic material cba jesus and purity 20

in the Dead Sea Scrolls does not clearly affirm that touching a leper makes a person unclean, and

at least one fragmentary text may indicate the opposite. The first glimmer of the idea that a

person touching a leper renders himself unclean appears in Josephus’ Against Apion, and even there it is not clear whether Josephus is engaging in polemical exaggeration. To be sure, Jesus commands the leper he cleanses to show himself to a priest, according to the Law. But this doesn’t tell us much about Jesus’ view of ritual purity. From a practical point of view, the ostracized leper could not return to and be integrated into ordinary social and religious life without “a clean bill of health,” as it were, from a priest.

In conclusion, then, we may at first be disappointed by the largely negative results of our investigation into Jesus and purity rules. In almost every pericope we have examined, not only is there no programmatic statement about ritual purity, there is simply an absence of or silence about the question. Granted the great debates about purity around the time of Jesus, one possible conclusion is that, for Jesus, ritual purity was not only not a burning issue, it was not an issue at all. In this, there is a major difference from his views, e.g., on divorce and the sabbath.

For the sake of broadening the scope of our discussion at the conclusion of this paper, let me pose the ultimate and radical question: What precisely was Jesus’ position on or approach to the Mosaic Law? Did Jesus oppose or annul the Mosaic Law as such? Certainly not. The

Mosaic Law was the given, the sacred canopy under which all Jewish debates about it take place.

And yet I would suggest that it is a basic mistake to try to find one coherent line of thought or systematic approach to the Law on the part of Jesus. The one and same Jesus totally forbids divorce, urges a commonsense approach to observing the sabbath, and seems unconcerned about cba jesus and purity 21

purity rules. This lack of a neat pattern flies in the face of a frequent agenda of Christian

theologians, who are often driven by a desire to find some “principle” from which Jesus’

teachings on the Law can be derived or on which they are based (love is perennially the favorite

candidate).

One hates to be against love, but here is one of the most common forms not only of

Christianizing the historical, Jewish Jesus but also of turning his halakic teachings into a system

of moral theology or Christian ethics. The historical Jesus was an itinerant eschatological

prophet and wonder worker along the lines of Elijah. In other words, he was a religious

charismatic. Such people implicitly or explicitly claim to know directly and intuitively God’s

will in particular situations. Hence, at least in the bedrock traditions we can attribute to Jesus

with fair certitude, Jesus usually does not reason to his teaching, derive it from some principle,

or invoke some other great teacher as his authority. There is no “the word of the Lord came to

me, saying...” or “Rabbi X said in the name of Rabbi Y.” As the final prophet sent from God to

Israel, Jesus knows that he knows God’s will, and that’s the end of that—an attitude summed up

perfectly in his characteristic, apodictic, and apparently unparalleled “Amen I say to you....” It’s

so because I say it’s so. In sum, then, Jesus’ studied indifference to ritual impurity—and,

indeed, all of Jesus’ specific teachings on halakic questions—stem not from some grand theory about or system of Law but rather from his self-understanding as the charismatic prophet of the

end time. Hopefully our appreciation and appropriation of this basic insight will purify us of the

original sin of Christianizing the historical Jesus. cba jesus and purity 22

END NOTES

i. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Volume Three. Companions and Competitors (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 2001) 644-46.

ii. For a statement of some of the problems involved in the task, see John P. Meier, “The Historical Jesus and the Historical Law: Some Problems within the Problem,” CBQ 65 (2003) 52-79; for one concrete example, see idem, “The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath,” CBQ 66 (2004) 561-81.

iii. The format of a rapid listing of relatively short theses does not lend itself to the full academic panoply of extensive end notes. In lieu of such an apparatus, I append here a working bibliography on purity laws in general and Jesus’ relationship to them in particular (notably Mark 7:1-23). The bibliography is ordered chronologically: J. H. A. Hart, “Corban,” JQR 19 (1907) 615-50; Adolf Büchler, Der Galiläische ‘Am-ha’Ares des zweiten Jahrhunderts. Beitrage zur inneren Geschichte des palastinischens Judentums in dem ersten zwei Jahrhunderten (Vienna: Alfred Hölder, 1906); idem, Studies in Sin and Atonement in the Rabbinic Literature of the First Century (London: Oxford University, 1928); idem, “The Law of Purification in Mark vii. 1-23,” ExpTim 21 (1909-1910) 34-40; Wilhelm Brandt, Die jüdische Reinheitslehre und ihre Beschreibung in den Evangelien (BZAW 19; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1910); Solomon Zeitlin, “The Halaka in the Gospels and its Relation to the Jewish Law at the Time of Jesus,” HUCA 1 (1924) 357-73; C. H. Turner, “Parenthetical Clauses in Mark,” JTS 26 (1925) 145-56; Abraham I. Shechter, Lectures on Jewish Liturgy (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1933); David Daube, “Public Pronouncement and Private Explanation in the Gospels,” ExpTim 57 (1945-46) 175-77; H. Idris Bell, “The Gospel Fragments P. Egerton 2,” HTR 42 (1949) 53-63; S. Stein, “The Dietary Laws in Rabbinic and Patristic Literature,” Studia Patristica. Volume Two. Papers Presented to the Second International Conference on Patristic Studies Held at Christ Church, Oxford, 1955 (ed. K. Aland and F. L. Cross; Berlin: Akademie, 1957) 141-54; Jacob Neusner, “The Fellowship in the Second Jewish Commonwealth,” HTR 53 (1960) 125-42; S. Safrai, “Teachings of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,” JJS 16 (1965) 15-33; Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger. An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London/ New York: Routledge, 1966, 2002 [with new preface]); Stephen M. Reynolds, “ΠΥΓΜΗI (Mark 7:3) as ‘Cupped Hand,’ ” JBL 85 (1966) 87-88; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Essene Avoidance of Oil and the Laws of Purity,” RevQ 6 (1967) 183-92; Helmut Merkel, “Markus 7.15: das Jesuswort über die innere Verunreinigung,” ZRGG 20 (1968) 340-63; Charles Carlston, “The Things that Defile (Mark VII.15) and the Law in Matthew and Mark,” NTS 15 (1968-69) 75-96; Martin Hengel, “Mc 7:3 pygm_ : Die Geschichte einer exegetischen Aporie und der Versuch ihrer Lösung,” ZNW 60 (1969) 182-98; Wilfried Paschen, Rein und Unrein (STANT 24; München: Kösel, 1970); M. Simon, “The Apostolic Decree and its Setting in cba jesus and purity 23

the Ancient Church,” BJRL 52 (1970) 437-600; Thomas L. Budesheim, “Jesus and the Disciples in Conflict with Judaism,” ZNW 62 (1971) 190-209; Jacob Milgrom, “Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11,” JBL 90 (1971) 149-56; idem, “Sin-Offering or Purification-Offering?” VT 21 (1971) 237-39; Klaus Berger, Die Gesetzesauslegung Jesu. Ihr historischer Hintergrund im Judentum und im Alten Testament. Teil I: Markus und Parallelen (WMANT 40; Neukrichen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1972); Neil J. McEleney, “Authenticating Criteria and Mark 7:1-23,” CBQ 34 (1972) 431-60; John Bowker, Jesus and the Pharisees (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973); Jacob Neusner, The Idea of Purity in Ancient Judaism. The Haskell Lectures 1972-1973 (SJLA 1; Leiden: Brill, 1973); Baruch Levine, In the Presence of the Lord. A Study of Cult and Some Cultic Terms in Ancient Israel (SJLA 5; Leiden: Brill, 1974); Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities (SJLA 6; 22 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1974-1977); Robert J. Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS 28; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975); Benjamin Mazar, The Mountain of the Lord (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975); W. D. McHardy, “Mark 7:3. A Reference to the Old Testament?” ExpTim 87 (1975-76) 119; J. M. Ross, “With the Fist,” ExpTim 87 (1975-76) 374-75; Lawrence H. Schiffman, The Halakhah at Qumran (SJLA 16; Leiden: Brill, 1975); Hans Hübner, “Mark vii.1-23 und das ‘Judisch-Hellenistische’ Gesetzesverständnis,” NTS 22 (1976) 319-45; Jacob Neusner, “ ‘First Cleanse the Inside.’ The ‘Halakhic’ Background of a Controversy-Saying,” NTS 22 (1976) 486-95; Graydon F. Snyder, “The Tobspruch in the New Testament,” NTS 23 (1976-1977) 117-20; Gedalyahu Alon, Jews, Judaism and the Classical World. Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977); Joseph M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law (SJLA 24; Leiden: Brill, 1977); Emanuel Feldman, Biblical and Post-Biblical Defilement and Mourning. Law as Theology (Library of Jewish Law and Ethics; New York: Yeshiva University, 1977); Jan Lambrecht, “Jesus and the Law: An Investigation of Mark 7:1-23,” ETL 53 (1977) 24-82; reprinted in Jésus aux origines de la christologie (BETL 40; ed. J. Dupont; 2d ed.; Leuven: Leuven University / Peeters, 1989) 358- 413 with addenda on pp. 413-15 and 428-29; Aharon Oppenheimer, The ‘Am ha-Aretz. A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (ALGHJ 8; Leiden: Brill, 1977); K. Romaniuk, “Le Problème des Paulinismes dans l’Évangile de Marc,” NTS 23 (1976-1977) 266-74; K. Tagawa, “ ‘Galilée et Jérusalem.’ L’attention portée par l’Evangéliste Marc à l’histoire de son temps,” RHPR 57 (1977) 439-70; Robert C. Tannehill, “The Disciples in Mark. The Function of Narrative Role,” JR 57 (1977) 386-405; Michael J. Cook, Mark’s Treatment of the Jewish Leaders (NovTSup 51; Leiden: Brill, 1978); Ellis Rivkin, A Hidden Revolution. The Pharisees’ Search for a Kingdom Within (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978); Stephen Westerholm, Jesus and Scribal Authority (ConBNT 10; Lund: Gleerup, 1978); Arland Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979); Barbara Thiering, “Inner and Outer Cleansing at Qumran as a Background to New Testament Baptism,” NTS 26 (1979- 1980) 266-77; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts,” JJS 31 (1980) 157-70; Joanna Dewey, Markan Public Debate. Literary Technique, Concentric Structure, and Theology in Mark 2:1-3:6 cba jesus and purity 24

(SBLDS 48; Chico, CA: Scholars, 1980); N. R. Petersen, “The Composition of Mark 4:1–8:26,” HTR 73 (1980) 194-217; John K. Riches, Jesus and the Transformation of Judaism (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1980); Jacob Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num. xix),” VT 31 (1981) 62-72; Yochanan Ronen, “Mark 7:1-23: ‘Tradition of the Elders,’ ” Immanuel 12 (1981) 44-54; Mary Douglas, Natural Symbols. Explorations in Cosmology (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982, originally 1970); Isidor Grunfeld, The Jewish Dietary Laws (2 vols.; 3d ed.; London/Jerusalem/New York: Soncino, 1982); Hyam Maccoby, “The Washing of Cups,” JSNT 14 (1982) 3-15; Elizabeth S. Malbon, “Galilee and Jerusalem. History and Literature in Marcan Interpretation,” CBQ 44 (1982) 242-55; Ehud Netzer, “Ancient Ritual Baths (Miqvaot) in Jericho,” The Jerusalem Cathedra. Studies in the History, Archaeology, Geography and Ethnography of the Land of Israel. Volume Two (ed. L. I. Levine; Jerusalem/Detroit, MI: Yad Iz_ak Ben-Zvi Institute/Wayne State University, 1982) 106-19; Jacob Neusner, “Two Pictures of the Pharisees. Philosophical Circle or Eating Club,” ATR 64 (1982) 525-38; Heikki Räisänen, “Jesus and the Food Laws: Reflections on Mark 7:15,” JSNT 16 (1982) 79-100; idem, “Zur Herkunft von Markus 7.15,” Logia. Les Paroles de Jésus. Mémorial Joseph Coppens (BETL 59; ed. J. Delobel et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 1982) 477- 84; Phillip Sigal, “Matthean Priority in Light of Mark 7,” Proceedings. Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society. Volume 2 (Grand Rapids: Eastern Great Lakes Biblical Society, 1982) 76-95; Jacob Milgrom, Studies in Cultic Terminology (SJLA 36; Leiden: Brill, 1983); Robert Parker, Miasma. Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford: Clarendon, 1983); G. Wenham, “Why Does Sexual Intercourse Defile?” ZAW 95 (1983) 432-34; Nahman Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Oxford: Blackwell, 1984; originally 1980); T. Frymer-Kensky, “Pollution, Purification, and Purgation in Biblical Israel,” The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth. Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday (ed. C. L. Meyers and M. O’Connor; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983) 399-414; B. Van Iersel, “Locality, Structure, and Meaning in Mark,” LB 53 (1983) 45-54; Ronny Reich, “A Miqweh at ‘Isawiya near Jerusalem,” IEJ 34 (1984) 220-23 + pl. 28; Marla J. Selvidge, “Mark 5:25-34 and Leviticus 15:19-20. A Reaction to Restrictive Purity Regulations,” JBL 103 (1984) 619-23; D. Wendebourg, “Die alttestamentlichen Reinheitsgesetze in der frühen Kirche,” ZNW 95 (1984) 149-70; James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus and Ritual Purity,” À cause de l’évangile (Jacques Dupont Festschrift; LD 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985) 251-76; Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (London: SCM, 1985); M. Kichelmacher and I. Magli, “A Brief Anthropological Analysis of Connections Between ‘Impurity,’ ‘Zar’at’ and Slander in Jewish Culture,” Koroth 9 (1985) 136-43; Michael Newton, The Concept of Purity at Qumran and in the Letters of Paul (SNTSMS 53; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1985) 10-51; Robert A. Wild, “The Encounter between Pharisaic and Christian Judaism. Some Early Gospel Evidence,” NovT 27 (1985) 105-24; David F. Wright, “Papyrus Egerton 2 (the Unknown Gospel)—Part of the Gospel of Peter?” Second Century 5 (1985-86) 129-50; David P. Wright, “Purification from Corpse-Contamination in Numbers XXXI 19-24,” VT 35 (1985) 213-23; Roger P. Booth, Jesus and the Laws of Purity. Tradition History and Legal History in Mark 7 (JSNTSup cba jesus and purity 25

13; Sheffield: JSOT, 1986); Daniel Boyarin, “Voices in the Text. Midrash and the Inner Tension of Biblical Narrative,” RB 93 (1986) 581-97; Gerhard Dautzenberg, “Gesetzeskritik und Gesetzesgehorsam in der Jesustradition,” Das Gesetz im Neuen Testament (QD 108; ed. K. Kertelge; Freiburg: Herder, 1986) 46-70; Richard K. Fenn, “Sources of Social Credit in 1st Century Palestine. Immanence and Authority in the Jesus Movement,” Ex Auditu 2 (1986) 19-33; Hans Hübner, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition: Studien zur These einer progressiven Qumranisierung und Judaisierung innerhalb der synoptischen Tradition (2d ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht, 1986, originally 1973); Marius Young-Heon Lee, Jesus und die jüdische Autorität. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu Mk 11,27—12,12 (Forshung zur Bibel 56; Würtburg: Echter, 1986); Elizabeth S. Malbon, Narrative Space and Mythic Meaning in Mark (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986); Jerome H. Neyrey, “The Idea of Purity in Mark’s Gospel,” Social-Scientific Criticism of the New Testament and Its Social World (Semeia 35; Decatur, GA: Scholars, 1986) 91-128; Heikki Räisänen, The Torah and Christ. Essays in German and English on the Problem of the Law in Early Christianity (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 45; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1986); Daniel R. Schwartz, “Viewing the Holy Utensils (P. Ox. V, 840),” NTS 32 (1986) 153-59; M. Slusser, “The Corban Passages in Patristic Exegesis,” Diakonia. Studies in Honor of Robert T. Meyer (ed. T. Halton and J. P. Williman; Washington: Catholic University of America, 1986) 101-7; Michael Fitzpatrick, “From Ritual Observance to Ethics: the Argument of Mark 7:1-23,” AusBR 35 (1987) 22-27; N. Kiuchi, The Purification Offering in the Priestly Literature. Its Meaning and Function (JSOTSup 56; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987); Ronny Reich, “Synagogue and Ritual Bath during the Second Temple and the Period of the Mishna and Talmud,” Synagogues in Antiquity (ed. A. Kasher et al.; Jerusalem: Yad Yitz_ak Ben-Tsevi, 1987) 205-12; David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity. Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature (SBLDS 101; Atlanta: Scholars, 1987); Klaus Berger, “Jesus als Pharisäer und frühe Christen als Pharisäer,” NovT 30 (1988) 231-62; Barnabas Lindars, “All Foods Clean: Thoughts on Jesus and the Law,” Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and Early Christianity (ed. idem; Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 1988) 62-71; Bruce J. Malina, “A Conflict Approach to Mark 7,” Forum 4 (1988) 3-30; Jerome H. Neyrey, “A Symbolic Approach to Mark 7,” Forum 4 (1988) 63-91; John J. Pilch, “A Structural Functional Analysis of Mark 7,” Forum 4 (1988) 31-62; Ronny Reich, “The Hot Bath-House (balneum), the Miqweh and the Jewish Community in the Second Temple Period,” JJS 39 (1988) 102-7; Joshua Schwartz, “On Priests and Jericho in the Second Temple Period,” JQR 79 (1988) 23-48; Peter J. Tomson, “Zavim 5:12—Reflections on Dating Mishnaic Halakhah,” History and Form. Dutch Studies in the Mishnah. Papers Read at the Workshop “Mishnah” (Publications of the Juda Palache Institute 4; ed. A. Kuyt and N. A. Van Uchelen; Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 1988) 53-69; Noam Zohar, “Repentance and Purification. The Significance and Semantics of _ℵ__ in the Pentateuch,” JBL 107 (1988) 609-18; Iain Ruai Mac Mhanainn Bóid, Principles of Samaritan Halachah (SJLA 38; Leiden: Brill, 1989); Elizabeth S. Malbon, “The Jewish Leaders in the Gospel of Mark. A Literary Study of cba jesus and purity 26

Marcan Characterization,” JBL 108 (1989) 259-81; Jacob Milgrom, “Rationale for Cultic Law: The Case of Impurity,” Thinking Biblical Law (Semeia 45; Atlanta: Scholars, 1989) 103-9; R. J. Miller, “The Inside is (Not) the Outside. Q 11:39-41 and Thomas 89,” Forum 5 (1989) 92-105; Franz Neirynck, “The Apocryphal Gospels and the Gospel of Mark. 5: Papyrus Egerton 2,” The New Testament in Early Christianity. La Réception des écrits néotestamentaires dans le christianisme primitive (BETL 86; ed. J. M. Sevrin; Leuven: Leuven University, 1989) 161-67; Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Temple Scroll and the Systems of Jewish Law of the Second Temple Period,” Temple Scroll Studies (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 7; ed. G. J. Brooke; Sheffield: JSOT, 1989) 239-55; S. H. Smith, “The Role of Jesus’ Opponents in the Markan Drama,” NTS 35 (1989) 161-82; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The 4Q Zadokite Fragments on Skin Disease,” JJS 41 (1990) 153-65; Roger P. Booth, Contrasts. Gospel Evidence and Christian Beliefs (W. Sussex: Paget, 1990); James D. G. Dunn, Jesus, Paul and the Law. Studies in Mark and Galatians (London: SPCK, 1990); Martin Goodman, “Kosher Olive Oil in Antiquity,” A Tribute to Geza Vermes. Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History (JSOTSup 100; ed. P. R. Davies and R. T. White; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990) 227-45; idem, “Sacred Scripture and ‘Defiling the Hands,’ ” JTS 41 (1990) 99-107; Jack D. Kingsbury, “The Religious Authorities in the Gospel of Mark,” NTS 36 (1990) 42-65; Jacob Milgrom, “The Scriptural Foundations and Deviations in the Laws of Purity of the Temple Scroll,” Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 8; JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2; ed. L. H. Schiffman; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990) 83- 99; Kevin Reinhart, “Impurity/No Danger,” History of Religions 30 (1990) 1-24; E. P. Sanders, “The Synoptic Jesus and the Law,” Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. Five Studies (London: SCM, 1990) 1-96, esp. 23-42; Heikki Sariola, Markus und das Gesetz. Eine redaktionskritische Untersuchung (Annales Academiae scientiarum fennicae; Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 56; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1990); Lawrence H. Schiffman, “The Impurity of the Dead in the Temple Scroll,” Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The New York University Conference in Memory of Yigael Yadin (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 8; JSOT/ASOR Monographs 2; ed. L. H. Schiffman; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990) 135-56; T. C. Skeat, “A Note on pygm_ in Mark 7:3,” JTS 41 (1990) 525- 27; Peter J. Tomson, Paul and the Jewish Law. Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT 3/1; Assen/Maastricht/Minneapolis: Van Gorcum/ Fortress, 1990); Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus (AB 3, 3A, and 3B; New York: Doubleday, 1991, 2000, 2001); Albert I. Baumgarten, “Rivkin and Neusner on the Pharisees,” Law in Religious Communities in the Roman Period. The Debate over Torah and Nomos in Post-Biblical Judaism and Early Christianity (Studies in Christianity and Judaism 4; ed. P. Richardson and S. Westerholm; Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University, 1991) 109-25; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Recent Qumran Discoveries and Halakhah,” Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (ed. S. Talmon; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991) 147-58; Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Menstruants and the Sacred in Judaism and Christianity,” Women’s History cba jesus and purity 27

and Ancient History (ed. S. B. Pomeroy; Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, 1991) 273-99; James D. G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM, 1991); Jacob Milgrom, “The Composition of Leviticus, Chapter 11,” Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 125; ed. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 182-91; idem, “Deviations from Scripture in the Purity Laws of the Temple Scroll,” Jewish Civilization in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (ed. S. Talmon; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991) 159-67; John Christopher Thomas, “The Fourth Gospel and Rabbinic Judaism,” ZNW 82 (1991) 159-82; David P. Wright, “The Spectrum of Priestly Impurity,” Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOTSup 125; ed. Gary A. Anderson and Saul M. Olyan; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991) 150- 81; Gary A. Anderson, “The Interpretation of the Purification Offering in the Temple Scroll (11QTemple) and Rabbinic Literature,” JBL 111 (1992) 17-35; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Purification Rituals in DJD 7,” The Dead Sea Scrolls. Forty Years of Research (STDJ 10; ed. D. Dimant & U. Rappaport; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 199-209; Bruce Chilton, “The Purity of the Kingdom as Conveyed in Jesus’ Meals,” (SBLASP 31; ed. Eugene H. Lovering; Atlanta: Scholars, 1992) 473-88; idem, The Temple of Jesus. His Sacrificial Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 1992); Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Purity and Piety. The Separation of Menstruants from the Sancta,” Daugthers of the King. Women and the Synagogue (ed. Susan Grossman and Rivka Haut; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1992) 103-15; James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus, Table-Fellowship, and Qumran,” Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. James H. Charlesworth; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 254-72; Sean Freyne, “Locality and Doctrine. Mark and John Revisited,” The Four Gospels 1992. Festchrift Frans Neirynck. Volume III (ed. F. van Segbroeck et al; Leuven: Leuven University, 1992) 1889-1900; Philip Jenson, Graded Holiness. A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (JSOTSup 106; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992); Menahem Kister, “Some Aspects of Qumran Halakhah,” The Madrid Qumran Congress. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Madrid, 18-21 March, 1991. Volume Two (STDJ 11; ed. J. T. Barrera and L. V. Montaner; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 571-88; E. P. Sanders, Judaism. Practice and Belief. 63 BCE-66 CE (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1992); Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Was There a Galilean Halakhah?” The Galilee in Late Antiquity (ed. Lee I. Levine; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary/Harvard University, 1992) 143-56; Daniel R. Schwartz, “ ‘Kingdom of Priests’—a Pharisaic Slogan?” Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (WUNT 60; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1992) 44-56; Terrance Callan, “The Background of the Apostolic Decree (Acts 15:20,29; 21:25),” CBQ 55 (1993) 284-97; Ronald Deines, Jüdische Steingefässe und pharisäische Frömmigkeit. Ein archäologisch-historischer Beitrag zum Verständis von Joh 2,6 und der jüdischen Reinheitshalacha zur Zeit Jesu (WUNT 2/52; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1993); Mary Douglas, In the Wilderness. The Doctrine of Defilement in the Book of Numbers (JSOTSup 158; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993); S. Friedman, “The Holy Scriptures Defile the Hands. The Transformation of a Biblical Concept in Rabbinic Theology,” Minhah le- cba jesus and purity 28

Nahum. Biblical and Other Studies Presented to Nahum M. Sarna in Honour of his 70th Birthday (JSOTSup 154; ed. M. Brettler and M. Fishbane; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) 117-32; Hannah K. Harrington, The Impurity Systems of Qumran and the Rabbis. Biblical Foundations (SBLDS 143; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993); Walter Houston, Purity and Monotheism. Clean and Unclean Animals in Biblical Law (JSOTSup 140; Sheffield: JSOT, 1993); Jacob Milgrom, “On the Purification Offering in the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 16 (1993) 99-101; idem, “The Concept of Impurity in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 16 (1993) 277-84; idem, “The Rationale for Biblical Impurity,” JANESCU 22 (1993) 107-11; Jacob Neusner, Judaic Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. A Systematic Reply to Professor E. P. Sanders (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 84; Atlanta: Scholars, 1993); Ronny Reich, “The Great Mikveh Debate,” BARev 19 (1993) 52-53; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Liquids and Susceptibility to Defilement in New 4Q Texts,” JQR 85 (1994) 91-101; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Purification after Childbirth and the Sacred Garden in 4Q and Jubilees,” New Qumran Texts and Studies. Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization of Qumran Studies, Paris, 1992 (ed. G. J. Brooke with F. García Martínez; Leiden: Brill, 1994) 3-10; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Zab Impurity in Qumran and Rabbinic Law,” JJS 45 (1994) 273-77; Ilana Be’er, “Blood Discharge: On Female Im/purity in the Priestly Code and in Biblical Literature,” A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy (ed. Athalya Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 152-64; Daniel Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University, 1994, originally 1990); Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Judaism at the Time of Jesus,” Jews and Christians Speak of Jesus (ed. A. E. Zannoni; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 3- 12; G. Feeley-Harnik, The Lord’s Table. The Meaning of Food in Early Judaism and Christianity (Washington/London: Smithsonian Institution, 1994); Bernard S. Jackson, “The Prophet and the Law in Early Judaism and the New Testament,” Jewish Law Association Studies VII. The Paris Conference Volume (ed. S. M. Passamaneck and M. Finley; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994) 67-112; Yitz_ak Magen, “Jerusalem as a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry during the Second Temple Period,” Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (ed. H. Geva; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994); 244-57; Jacob Milgrom, “Confusing the Sacred and the Impure. A Rejoinder,” VT 44 (1994) 554-59; Jacob Neusner, Purity in Rabbinic Judaism. A Systematic Account (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 95; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994); Zeev Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine (London/New York: Routledge, 1994); Anthony Saldarini, “Pluralism of Practice and Belief in First-Century Judaism,” Jews and Christians Speak of Jesus (ed. A. E. Zannoni; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 13-34; Gregory Salyer, “Rhetoric, Purity, and Play: Aspects of Mark 7:1-23,” The Rhetoric of Pronouncement (Semeia 64; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994) 139-69; Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Case of Tevul Yom,” Dead Sea Discoveries 1 (1994) 285-99; Sorour Souroudi, “The Concept of Jewish Impurity and Its Reflection in Persian and Judeo-Persian Traditions,” Irano-Judaica III. Studies Relating to Jewish Contacts with Persian Culture Throughout the Ages (ed. Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer; Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, 1994) 142-65; M. D. Swartz, “ ‘Like cba jesus and purity 29

Ministering Angels.’ Ritual Purity in Early Jewish Mysticism and Magic,” AJS Review 19 (1994) 135-67; Peter S. Zaas, “Paul and the Halakhah: Dietary Laws for Gentiles in I Corinthians 8-10,” Jewish Law Association Studies VII. The Paris Conference Volume (ed. S. M. Passamaneck and M. Finley; Atlanta: Scholars, 1994) 233-45; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Laws about Fluxes in 4QTohoraa (4Q274),” Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness (STDJ 16; ed. D. Dimant & L. Schiffman; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 1- a 8; Jacob Milgrom, “4QTohora : An Unpublished Qumran Text on Purities,” ibid., 59-68; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Red Cow Purification Rites in Qumran Texts,” JJS 46 (1995) 112-19; Craig A. Evans, Jesus and his Contemporaries. Comparative Studies (AGJU 25; Leiden: Brill, 1995); Paula Fredriksen, “Did Jesus Oppose the Purity Laws?” Bible Review 11 (1995) 18-25, 42-47; Florentino García Martínez, “The Problem of Purity. The Qumran Solution,” The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Their Writings, Beliefs and Practices (ed. F. G. Martínez and J. T. Barrera; Leiden: Brill, 1995); Hannah K. Harrington, “Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in a State of Ritual Purity?” JSJ 26 (1995) 42-54; Martin Hengel and Roland Deines, “E. P. Sanders’ ‘Common Judaism’, Jesus, and the Pharisees,” JTS 46 (1995) 1-70; René Kieffer, “Traditions juives selon Mc 7,1-23,” Texts and Contexts. Biblical Texts in their Textual and Situational Contexts. Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman (ed. T. Fornberg and D. Hellholm; Oslo: Scandinavian University, 1995) 675-88; Jonathan Klawans, “Notions of Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism,” Association for Jewish Studies Review 20 (1995) 285-312; Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence. The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995); Tan Giok Lie, “Analysis of Jesus’ Teaching Episode within the Framework of the Seven Components of Teaching: Conflict over the Tradition of Ceremonial Defilement (Matt 15:1-20; Mark 7:1-23) STJ 3 (1995) 83-94; Ronny Reich, “The Synagogue and the Miqweh in Eretz-Israel in the Second-Temple, Mishnaic, and Talmudic Periods,” Ancient Synagogues. Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. (SPB 47; 2 vols.; ed. Dan Urman and Paul V. M. Flesher; Leiden/New York/Cologne: Brill, 1995) 1. 289-97; Lester Grabbe, “Synagogues in Pre- 70 Palestine: A Re-Assessment,” ibid., 1. 17-26; Paul Virgil McCracken Flesher, “Palestinian Synagogues before 70 C.E.: A Review of the Evidence,” ibid., 1. 27-39; Rolf Rendtorff, “Another Prolegomenon to Leviticus 17:11,” Pomegranates and Golden Bells. Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (ed. David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 23-28; Albert Baumgarten, “The Temple Scroll, Toilet Practices, and the Essenes,” Jewish History 10 (1996) 11-13; Edward M. Cook, “A Ritual Purification Center,” BAR 22 (1996) 39, 48-51, 73-75; Kurt Erlemann, “Papyrus Egerton 2. ‘Missing Link’ zwischen synoptischer und johanneischer Tradition,” NTS 42 (1996) 12-34; J. Joosten, People and Land in the Holiness Code. An Exegetical Study of the Ideational Framework of the Law in Leviticus 17-26 (VTSup 67; Leiden: Brill, 1996); James Kugel, “The Holiness of Israel and the Land in Second Temple Time,” Text, Temple and Tradition. A Tribute to Menahem Haran (ed. M. V. Fox et al.; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996); William R. G. Loader, “Challenged at the Boundaries. A Conservative Jesus in Mark’s Tradition,” JSNT 63 (1996) 45-61; J. Magonet, “ ‘But If It cba jesus and purity 30

Is a Girl She is Unclean for Twice Seven Days . . .’ The Riddle of Leviticus 12.5,” Reading Leviticus. A Conversation with Mary Douglas (JSOTSup 227; ed. J. F. A. Sawyer; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 144-52; Daniela Piattelli and Bernard S. Jackson, “Jewish Law during the Second Temple Period,” An Introduction to the History and Sources of Jewish Law (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996) 19-56; John C. Poirier, “Why Did the Pharisees Wash Their Hands?” JJS 47 (1996) 217-33; Eyal Regev, “Ritual Baths of Groups and Sects in Israel in the Days of the Second Temple,” Cathedra 79 (1996) 3-21; Frank Matera, New Testament Ethics (Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 1996) 25-30; Peter S. Zaas, “What Comes out of a Person Is What Makes a Person Impure. Jesus as Sadducee,” Jewish Law Association Studies VIII. The Jerusalem 1994 Conference Volume (ed. E. A. Goldman; Atlanta: Scholars, 1996) 217-26; Hans Dieter Betz, “Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15-18). A Comparative Approach,” JBL 116 (1997) 455-72; Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, Jesus in Context. Temple, Purity, and Restoration (AGJU 39; Leiden: Brill, 1997); Ronald Deines, Die Pharisäer. Ihr Verständis im Spiegel der christlichen und jüdischen Forschung seit Wellhausen und Graetz (WUNT 101; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1997); Esther Eshel, “4Q414 Fragment 2. Purification of a Corpse-Contaminated Person,” Legal Texts and Legal Issues. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Cambridge, 1995. Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (STDJ 23; ed. M. Berstein et al.; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 3-10; Lester L. Grabbe, “4QMMT and Second Temple Jewish Society,” ibid., 89-108; Hannah K. Harrington, “Holiness in the Laws of 4QMMT,” ibid., 109-28; Hanan Eshel, “A Note on ‘Miqvaot’ at Sepphoris,” Archaeology and the Galilee. Texts and Contexts in the Graeco-Roman and Byzantine Periods (South Florida Studies in the History of Judaism 143; ed. D. R. Edwards and C. T. McCollough; Atlanta: Scholars, 1997) 131-33; Jonathan Klawans, “The Impurity of Immorality in Ancient Judaism,” JJS 48 (1997) 1- 16; R. A. Kugler, “Holiness, Purity, the Body and Society,” JSOT 76 (1997) 3-27; Joel Marcus, “Scripture and Tradition in Mark 7,” The Scriptures in the Gospels (BETL 81; ed. C. M. Tuckett; Leuven: Leuven University/Peeters, 1997) 177-95; Gerard Mussies, “Jesus and ‘Sidon’ in Matthew 15/Mark7,” Bijdr 58 (1997) 264-78; Eyal Regev, “The Use of Stone Vessels at the End of the Second Temple Period,” Judea and Samaria Research Studies. Proceeding of the 6th Annual Meeting – 1996 (ed. Ya‘acov Eshel; Kedumim-Ariel: Research Institute, College of Judea & Samaria, 1997); N. A. van Uchelen, “Halakha at Qumran?” RevQ 70 (1997) 243-53; Jürgen Wehnert, Die Reinheit des “christlichen Gottesvolkes” aus Juden und Heiden. Studien zum historischen und theologischen Hintergrund des sogenannten Aposteldekrets (FRLANT 173; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997); Benjamin G. Wright III, “Jewish Ritual Baths. Interpreting the Digs and the Texts. Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism,” The Archaeology of Israel. Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (JSOTSup 237; ed. N. A. Silberman and D. Small; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 190-214; Marcus Borg, Conflict, Holiness and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998, originally 1984); Jonathan Klawans, “Idolatry, Incest, and Impurity. Moral Defilement in Ancient Judaism,” JSJ 29 (1998) cba jesus and purity 31

391-415; Rebecca Macy Lesses, Ritual Practices to Gain Power. Angels, Incantations, and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism (HTS 44; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998); William Loader, “Mark 7:1-23 and the Historical Jesus,” Colloquium 30/2 (1998) 123-51; Risto Uro, “Thomas and Oral Gospel Tradition,” Thomas at the Crossroads. Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q (Studies of the New Testament and Its World; ed. R. Uro; Edinburgh: Clark, 1998) 8-32; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “The Purification Liturgies,” The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years. A Comprehensive Assessment. Volume Two (ed. Peter W. Flint and James C. VanderKam; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 200-212; Philip R. Davies, “Food, Drink and Sects: The Question of Ingestion in the Qumran Texts,” Food and Drink in the Biblical Worlds (Semeia 86; Atlanta: SBL, 1999); Peter J. Tomson, “Jewish Food Laws in Early Christian Discourse,” ibid., 193-211; Christine Hayes, “Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,” HTR 92 (1999) 3-36; Martha Himmelfarb, “Sexual Relations and Purity in the Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees,” DSD 6 (1999) 11-36; Hyam Maccoby, Ritual and Morality. The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999); Scot McKnight, “A Parting within the Way. Jesus and James on Israel and Purity,” James the Just and Christian Origins (NovTSup 98; ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 83-129; Fritz Stoltz, “Dimensions and Transformations of Purification Ideas,” Transformations of the Inner Self in Ancient Religions (Studies in the History of Religions [Numen Book Series] 83; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 211-29; Mary Douglas, Leviticus As Literature (Oxford: Oxford University, 1999); idem, “A Bird, a Mouse, a Frog, and Some Fish: A New Reading of Leviticus 11,” Literary Imagination, Ancient and Modern (David Grene Festschrift; Chicago/ London: University of Chicago, 1999) 110-26; Markus Bockmuehl, Jewish Law in Gentile Churches. Halakhah and the Beginning of Christian Public Ethics (Edinburgh: Clark, 2000); François Bovon, “Fragment Oxyrynchus 840. Fragment of a Lost Gospel. Witness of an Early Christian Controversy over Purity,” JBL 119 (2000) 705-28; Jonathan Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University, 2000); Bart J. Koet, “Purity and Impurity of the Body in Luke-Acts,” Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus (Jewish and Christian Perspectives 2; ed. Marcel J. H. M. Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 93-106; Chaim Milikowsky, “Reflections on Hand-Washing, Hand-Purity, and Holy Scripture in Rabbinical Literature,” ibid., 149-62; Jacob Milgrom, “The Dynamics of Purity in the Priestly System,” ibid., 29-32; Eric Ottenheijm, “Impurity between Intention and Deed: Purity Disputes in First Century Judaism and in the New Testament,” ibid., 129-47; Eyal Regev, “Non-Priestly Purity and its Religious Aspects according to Historical Sources and Archaeological Findings,” ibid., 223-44; idem, “Pure Individualism. The Idea of Non-Priestly Purity in Ancient Judaism,” JSJ 31 (2000) 176- 202; Baruch J. Schwartz, “Israel’s Holiness: The Torah Traditions,” Purity and Holiness. The Heritage of Leviticus (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 2; ed. Marcel J. H. M. Poorthuis and Joshua Schwartz; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 47-59; Joshua Schwartz, “On Birds, Rabbis and Skin Disease,” ibid., 207-22; Peter J. Tomson, “Jewish Purity Laws as Viewed by the Church Fathers and by the Early Followers of Jesus,” ibid., 73-91; Cana Werman, “The Concept of Holiness and the Requirements of Purity in Second cba jesus and purity 32

Temple and Tannaic Literature,” ibid., 163-79; Aharon Shemesh, “The Holiness According to the Temple Scroll,” RevQ 19 (2000) 369-82; Jesper Svartvik, Mark and Mission. Mk 7:1-23 in its Narrative and Historical Contexts (ConBNT 32; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2000); Risto Uro, “ ‘Washing the Outside of the Cup.’ Gos. Thom. 89 and Synoptic Parallels,” From Quest to Q. Festschrift for James M. Robinson (BETL 146; ed. J. Ma. Asgeirsson, K. De Troyer, and M. W. Meyer; Leuven: Leuven University, 2000) 303-22; Charlotte Fonrobert, Menstrual Purity (Stanford, CA: Stanford, 2000); Martha Himmelfarb, “Impurity and Sin in 4QD, 1QS, and 4Q512, “Dead Sea Scrolls 8 (2001) 9-37; Tom Holmén, Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking (Biblical Interpretation Series 55; Leiden: Brill, 2001); Menahem Kister, “Law, Morality, and Rhetoric in Some Sayings of Jesus,” Studies in Ancient Midrash (ed. J. L. Kugel; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for Jewish Studies, 2001); Anders Runesson, “Water and Worship. Ostia and the Ritual Bath in the Diaspora Synagogue,” The Synagogue of Ancient Ostia and the Jews of Rome. Interdisciplinary Stuides (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet I Rom 4/57; ed. Birger Olsson, Dieter Mitternacht, and Olof Brandt; Stockholm: Paul Åströms, 2001) 115-29; Peter J. Tomson, “If This Be from Heaven ....” Jesus and the New Testament Authors in their Relationship to Judaism (Biblical Seminar 76; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001); Hannah K. Harrington, Holiness. Rabbinic Judaism and the Graeco-Roman World (London/ New York: Routledge, 2001); Lawrence H. Schiffman, “Jewish Law at Qumran,” Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part Five. The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2001) 75-90; Johann Maier, “Purity at Qumran: Cultic and Domestic,” Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part Five. The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2001) 91-124; Justin Taylor, “The Jerusalem Decrees (Acts 15.20, 29 and 21.25 and the Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11-14),” NTS 46 (2001) 372-80; Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans, and Jacob Neusner, The Missing Jesus. Rabbinic Judaism and the New Testament (Boston/Leiden: Brill, 2002); James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus and Purity. An Ongoing Debate,” NTS 48 (2002) 449- 67; idem, Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002); Thomas R. Hatina, In Search of a Context. The Function of Scripture in Mark’s Narrative (JSNTSup 232; Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 8; London/New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002); William R. G. Loader, Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law. A Study of the Gospels (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2002, originally 1997); David J. Rudolph, “Jesus and the Food Laws. A Reassessment of Mark 7:19b,” EvQ 74 (2002) 291-311; Thomas Kazen, Jesus and Purity Halakhah. Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity? (ConB 38; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2002); Halvor Moxnes, “Jesus the Jew. Dilemmas of Interpretation,” Fair Play. Diversity and Conflicts in Early Christianity. Essays in Honor of Heikki Räisänen (ed. I. Dunderberg, C. Tuckett, and K. Syreeni; Leiden: Brill, 2002) 83-103; Jacob Neusner, The Halakhah. Historical and Religious Perspectives (Brill Reference Library of Ancient Judaism 8; Leiden: Brill, 2002); idem, Judaism When Christianity Began. A Survey of Belief and Practice (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 2002); Liora Ravid, “Purity and Impurity in the Book Jubilees,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 13 (2002) 61-86; Ronny Reich, “They Are cba jesus and purity 33

Ritual Baths,” BARev 28/2 (2002) 50-55; Franz Georg Untergassmair, “Jesus und die jüdische Gesetzestraditioin im Lichte urchristlicher Interpretation (Mk 7,1–13),” Forschungen zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (Albert Fuchs Festchrift; Linzer Philosophisch-Theologische Beiträge 7; ed. Christoph Niemand; Frankfurt: Lang, 2002) 175-90; Christine E. Hayes, Gentile Impuritiies and Jewish Identities (Oxford: Oxford University, 2002); James G. Crossley, “Halakah and Mark 7.4. ‘ . . . and beds’, ” JSNT 25 (2003) 433-47; John C. Poirier, “Purity beyond the Temple in the Second Temple Era,” JBL 122 (2003) 247-65; Jonathan Klawans, “Ritual Purity, Moral Purity, and Sacrifice in Jacob Milgrom’s Leviticus,” RelSRev 29 (2003) 19-28; Eyal Regev, “Abominated Temple and a Holy Community: The Formation of the Notions of Purity and Impurity in Qumran,” Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2003) 243-78. For a brief history of views on purity in 20th-century literature, see Harrington, The Impurity Systems, 2-28; Klawans, Impurity and Sin, 3-20.