Purity practices during the first century ce were widespread in Judaea and Galilee as part of everyday life and not limited to concerns relating to the temple cult. Developments in key water rites were partly triggered by concepts of graded impurity, to which an understanding of defilement via food also belonged. Certain rabbinic characteristics represent later developments and cannot be assumed for the time of Jesus. Hand impurity did not originate as a rabbinic decree to protect tĕrûmâ, and accusations against Pharisees for setting aside Scripture in favour of their own traditions did not originate with the historical Jesus, but suggest later polemics. Jesus’ stance on purity is perhaps better characterized as prophetic than halakic.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1971), vol. 3, p. 188; idem, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities (22 vols.; sjla, 6; Leiden: Brill, 1974–1977), vol. 22, pp. 106, 108; idem, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (2nd ed.; New York: ktav, 1979), p. 14.
Sanders, Jewish Law, p. 184; idem, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 bce-66 ce (London: scm, 1992), pp. 218–219, 229–230, 245–246.
Cecilia Wassén, ‘The Jewishness of Jesus and Ritual Purity’, Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 27 (2016), pp. 11–36; quotation from p. 31.
Adler, ‘Tosefta Shabbat 1:14’, p. 70 and p. 73, fig. 3, from David Amit, Hagit Torgü, and Peter Gendelman, ‘Ḥorvat Burnat: A Jewish Village in the Lod Shephelah during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods’, Qadmoniot 136 (2008), pp. 96–107. The site plan gives an excellent example of what has been found to be the case in numerous other sites as well. Another example with a large concentration of stepped pools, mentioned by Adler, from the period 70–135 ce, is Shu’afat (‘Tosefta Shabbat 1:14’, p. 69).
Cf. Sanders, Jesus, pp. 297–298, pp. 228–230; Judaism, pp. 237–238. Similarly, Friedrich Avemarie claims that impurity of hands is not strong enough to contaminate food, and that Jesus anyway does not consider defilement by impure food as existing (‘Jesus and Purity’, in Reimund Bieringer et al. (eds.), The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (Supjsj, 136; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), pp. 255–279 (here pp. 266–267). Peter S. Zaas, ‘What Comes Out of a Person is What Makes a Person Impure: Jesus as Sadducee’, in E. A. Goldman (ed.), Jewish Law Association Studies viii: The Jerusalem 1994 Conference Volume (Atlanta, ga: Scholars Press, 1996), pp. 217–226, also suggests that the chain of contagion from hands to food and eater was not biblical (p. 224).
Kazen, Jesus, pp. 67–85; Issues, pp. 113–135; Scripture, pp. 162–176.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 300 | 55 | 15 |
Full Text Views | 263 | 8 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 120 | 18 | 1 |
Purity practices during the first century ce were widespread in Judaea and Galilee as part of everyday life and not limited to concerns relating to the temple cult. Developments in key water rites were partly triggered by concepts of graded impurity, to which an understanding of defilement via food also belonged. Certain rabbinic characteristics represent later developments and cannot be assumed for the time of Jesus. Hand impurity did not originate as a rabbinic decree to protect tĕrûmâ, and accusations against Pharisees for setting aside Scripture in favour of their own traditions did not originate with the historical Jesus, but suggest later polemics. Jesus’ stance on purity is perhaps better characterized as prophetic than halakic.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 300 | 55 | 15 |
Full Text Views | 263 | 8 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 120 | 18 | 1 |