RBL 03/2012

Kazen, Thomas
Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to
Impurity?
Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series 38
Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010. Pp. xii + 402.
Paper. $44.95. ISBN 9781575068091.

Kevin McCruden
Gonzaga University
Spokane, Washington
In Jesus and Purity Halakhah: Was Jesus Indifferent to Impurity, Thomas Kazen seeks to
retrieve the stance of the historical Jesus on the issue of ritual impurity. The present
edition of the volume represents a corrected reprint of substantially the same book that
was published by Almqvist & Wiksell in 2002. Part 1 of the book comprises two chapters
and clarifies the chief assumptions and methodology informing Kazens analysis. Kazen
situates his project against the background of the third phase or quest of the historical
Jesus. While applauding more recent scholarly reconstructions that seek to emphasize the
points of continuity between Jesus and first-century Judaism, Kazen argues that more
attention should be paid to plausible instances of discontinuity between Jesus and his
Jewish environment as reflected in the Gospels.
Although Kazen admits that the traditions contained in the Synoptic Gospels reveal
adaptation in light of early church reflection, he argues nonetheless that the narrative
traditions in particular may preserve authentic historical reminiscence. Kazen rightly
maintains that, given the role of interpretation that attended every stage of the process of
transmission, the actual historical events of Jesus ministry remain largely unrecoverable.
The best the historian can achieve is a retrieval of the earliest interpretation of an event.
To facilitate this task, Kazen employs redaction-critical analysis to separate the more

This review was published by RBL 2012 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

obvious layers of interpretation from plausible earlier tradition that may reveal Jesus
attitude to impurity concerns.
Principal among Kazens contentions in this detailed and rigorous study is that an
increasingly expansionist orientation with respect to purity concerns was operative
toward the end of the Second Temple period. In addition to the purity issues implicit in
the Gospel narratives, Kazen gleans the majority of his evidence for this expansionist
trend from the writings of Josephus, Philo, the Mishnah, and especially the legal texts
stemming from Qumran. While mindful of the difficulties associated with gauging the
actual level of purity observance among the ordinary Jewish population of antiquity,
Kazen is adamant that the avoidance of impurity animated the lives of even ordinary Jews
in the late Second Temple period. The strongest evidence for this claim rests on the
archeological remains of miqvaot, or immersion pools, as well as the prevalent use of
stone vessels for food storage purposes.
In the second part of his study Kazen probes more directly the question concerning
whether Jesus had discernible conflicts with his contemporaries over issues of impurity.
Kazen focuses his attention on three episodes from Mark: the hand-washing controversy
(7:123), the healing of the leper (1:4045), and the intercalated account of the healing of
the bleeding woman and the raising of Jairuss daughter (5:2134). Kazen is aware of the
methodological difficulties attending the hand-washing controversy. From a form-critical
perspective, it appears that Mark 7:123 is a conflict story that reveals substantial signs of
early Christian polemical and apologetic intent. After offering a careful redactional
analysis of the passage, Kazen concludes that, while the specific issue of hand-washing is
likely pre-Markan, the separate preoccupation with the issue of clean and unclean food
likely reflects a chronologically later Sitz im Leben associated with the Gentile mission. In
terms of the value of Mark 7:123 for the task of historical reconstruction, Kazen discerns
in the logion found in 7:15 a relativizing perspective on the part of Jesus. More
specifically, Jesus use of the language of inner and outer plausibly inscribes the memory
of a somewhat indifferent attitude taken by Jesus with regard to the specific issue of
bodily transmittable impurity.
Kazen next analyzes the miracle accounts of the healing of the leper and the healing of the
bleeding woman, two nonconflict stories where the issue of bodily discharge and corpse
impurity come to the fore, respectively. Kazen begins by challenging the form-critical
assessment that judges the Gospel miracle accounts as offering little by way of authentic
historical reminiscence. Kazen points to the fact that Jesus was remembered as a miracle
worker and argues that Jesus healing activities should be analyzed against the backdrop
of the cultural and conceptual world of antiquity. Kazen is quick to maintain, however,
that not every element of a miracle story is therefore historical or nonfictional. That said,

This review was published by RBL 2012 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

Kazen assumes that historical features likely adhere to at least some of the miracle
accounts narrated in the Synoptics. Kazen intentionally does not treat the Fourth Gospel
due to its highly epiphanic character.
Kazens rationale for choosing just these healing accounts is twofold: these incidents
inscribe three categories of impurity that in first-century Judaism were considered
primary transmitters of impurity, namely, corpses, skin ailments, and genital discharges;
and Kazen prefers to focus on Gospel incidents where purity concerns appear peripheral
to more evident theological commitments. Kazens assumption in this regard is that an
Evangelist such as Mark may have ignored a purity issue present in earlier tradition in the
interest of making a larger christological claim.
Kazens analysis of the healing account of the leper begins with the observation that
multiple literary traditions inclusive of triple tradition material (Mark 1:4045; Matt 8:2
4; Luke 5:1216), Q material (Luke 7:22; Matt 11:5), Marks and Matthews version of the
anointing story (Mark 14:3; Matt 26:6), and, finally, Papyrus Egerton 2 all depict Jesus as
coming into contact with lepers. Kazen views these witnesses as preserving the historical
memory that Jesus practiced conspicuous solidarity with lepers in conflict with an
increasingly expansionist concern to ostracize lepers found in certain texts from the
Second Temple period.
Kazen next considers the intercalated account of the bleeding woman and the raising of
the daughter of Jairus. He insightfully notes that Mark ignores the evident purity
dimension of the passage in favor of exploiting a theological lesson focused on the power
of faith. It is, however, significant that Marks description of the womans bleeding
problem in 5:25 recalls the Septuagint formulation of Lev 15:19 and 25, where a genital
discharge is in view. Moreover, Marks repeated use of the Greek verb to touch poses an
interesting parallel to Lev 15 where the danger of contracting the impurity of a bodily
discharge through touch is clearly in view. Kazen is likely correct, therefore, when he
asserts that a purity issue figured more prominently in earlier stages of the tradition,
despite Marks relative disinterest in the issue. References to touch also figure into the
story of the raising of Jairuss daughter, where the specific issue of corpse impurity comes
into focus.
Kazens exegetical analysis of these passages is provocative. In particular, the emphasis in
these passages on touch is indeed suggestive and may lend support to Kazens claim that
the historical Jesus was indifferent to at least certain impurity concerns. However, there
are several difficulties that I find in Kazens methodology. The primary evidence that
Kazen repeatedly draws on for his claim that an expansionist current existed in Second
Temple Judaism comes from such areas as the writings of Josephus, the legal material of

This review was published by RBL 2012 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

Qumran, and the Mishnah. While I think that Kazen clearly demonstrates that an
expansionist trend is evident in such sources, I find his assumption that such highly
literate sources provide enough clues about the prevalence of purity concerns among the
ordinary population of Jesus day somewhat problematic. Kazen is on firmer ground
when he points to the existence of miqvaot both within and outside Jerusalem as evidence
for widespread purity concerns among ordinary persons. However, the majority of these
pools are found in Jerusalem, a site that may very well represent something of an
exception due to its supreme cultic importance. As for the archaeological remains of
miqvaot found outside Jerusalem, Kazen mentions scholarly disagreement over whether
purification was clearly the function of all of these.
In part 3 of his study Kazen presents three explanatory models for assessing Jesus
indifferent attitude to purity concerns. The first of these models is described as a moral
trajectory model. While contesting certain elements of the terminology employed by
Jonathan Klawans, Kazen remains in substantive agreement with Klawans on the point
that purity was generally understood by Jews in antiquity as essentially a cultic and not a
moral category. Kazen likewise concurs with the assessment of Klawans that ancient Jews
tended not to confuse the concepts of bodily impurity and defiling acts of immorality.
Kazen insists, however, that something of an overlap also existed in these areas, in the
sense that both moral evaluations could sometimes be attached to issues of bodily
impurity and ideas of ritual defilement could sometimes be applied to immoral acts.
Kazen sees Jesus and, for that matter, John the Baptist, as advocating something akin to
this moral trajectory in the sense that both figures were apparently more concerned with
inner impurity conceived as violations of social justice than with outer bodily impurity.
Kazen next looks to Jesus Galilean setting and attempts to situate Jesus stance on
impurity in terms of the sociological categories of little tradition versus great tradition.
Kazen argues that, while Galileans were in general religiously conservative, they were
likewise seemingly less oriented to expansionist concerns. As a rural teacher without any
pretentions to elite status, Jesus may have been relatively pragmatic with regard to issues
of impurity and legal matters, certainly more pragmatic than the great-tradition
perspectives prevalent in Jerusalem.
Lastly, Kazen looks at the possible connections to be drawn between demon possession
and impurity. He contends that, on the level of popular religiosity in particular, demon
possession apparently could be linked to the concept of impurity. According to Kazen,
this link offers a potentially fruitful avenue for viewing the significance of Jesus exorcistic
activity in relation to his apparently indifferent attitude to some forms of bodily impurity.
As the agent of the kingdom, Jesus may have seen himself as possessing a kind of dynamic

This review was published by RBL 2012 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.

purity powerful enough to cleanse away forms of bodily impurity that he encountered
among the afflicted.
Part 4 of Kazens study contains his concluding reflections; given the brevity of the
section, it might have been better conceived simply as a conclusion. Here Kazen provides
both a synopsis of his findings in the preceding three parts of the study and demonstrates
his commitment to an interpretation of Jesus stance toward impurity that locates Jesus
within and not outside the Jewish religious context of his day.
Kazens study affords an excellent contribution in two areas in particular. First, in terms
of historical Jesus research, Kazen admirably demonstrates that the question of Jesus
stance on impurity should occupy an increasingly central place with historical Jesus
research. Second, Kazens study makes a significant contribution to the scholarly debate
surrounding the so-called Jewishness of Jesus. What precisely are some of the complex
ways in which Jesus both conforms to, and perhaps also deviates from, the Jewish context
of his public ministry, a context that must remain central for the task of responsible
historical reconstruction? Kazens reflections in this study provide many thoughtful
entrance points for entering into just such a discussion.

This review was published by RBL 2012 by the Society of Biblical Literature. For more information on obtaining a
subscription to RBL, please visit http://www.bookreviews.org/subscribe.asp.