Source: “The Jewish Gospels: The Story of the Jewish Christ”, 2012 by Daniel Boyarin
This academic text argues that the Gospel of Mark, often seen as marking Christianity's break from Judaism, should instead be understood as a Jewish text reflecting inner Jewish controversies. The author posits that Jesus, as depicted in Mark, was a staunch defender of the Torah and its kosher rules, not someone abrogating them. Instead of rejecting dietary laws altogether, Jesus is shown challenging the Pharisees' innovations and extensions of purity laws, particularly regarding ritual handwashing, viewing these as human traditions that superseded the divine law. Ultimately, the text contends that Mark's Jesus was a leader within Judaism, debating the proper interpretation and practice of the Torah rather than founding a new religion.
The Deeply Jewish Nature of the Early Jesus Movement: The source posits that the ideas and practices of the first-century Jesus movement were fundamentally part of the Judaism of that era. It suggests that theological concepts like Trinity and incarnation, or at least their foundational elements, were already present among Jewish believers even before Jesus' arrival. This perspective contrasts with interpretations that view the movement as an immediate and radical break from Judaism.
The Gospels as Evidence for Jewishness (Counter to Conventional Views): While the Gospels, particularly Mark, are often interpreted as demonstrating a significant break from Judaism, the source argues they actually provide compelling evidence for the Jewishness of early Jesus communities. It notes that conventional readings often portray Jesus' teaching as a radical departure from a perceived legalistic and rule-bound Judaism, highlighting the supposed rejection of traditional piety forms. The source specifically focuses on the interpretation of Jesus' relationship with Jewish dietary laws as a prime example of this perceived rupture.
Jesus' Adherence to and Defense of the Torah and Kosher Practices: A central argument of the source is that, contrary to prevalent views, Jesus, as depicted in the Gospel of Mark (and even more so in Matthew), observed kosher laws. Far from abandoning the laws of the Torah, Jesus is presented as a staunch defender of the Law. The controversies Jesus had with other Jewish leaders were regarding the best method of observing the Law, not about whether to observe it at all.
The Pharisees as a Reform Movement and Their "Tradition of the Elders": The source describes the Pharisees as a reform movement primarily based in Jerusalem and Judaea. They aimed to persuade other Jews to adopt their particular understanding of God and the Torah, which included incorporating changes or extensions to the written Torah's practices. These changes were justified by what the Pharisees called "the tradition of the Elders," an oral tradition supposedly passed down from Sinai. To many traditional Jews, these Pharisaic innovations, especially those altering long-held practices, would have felt like radical changes.
Jesus' Position as a Conservative Reaction to Pharisaic Innovation: The source proposes that Jesus' approach represented a conservative response against what he perceived as radical changes to the Law introduced by the Pharisees and Scribes from Jerusalem. Seen through this lens, Jesus was not engaged in a fight against Judaism itself, but rather a conflict within Judaism. He is depicted not as a marginal figure, but as a leader of a particular form of Judaism that was being challenged or marginalized by the Pharisees, whom he saw as dangerous innovators.
Mark 7 as the Conventionally Interpreted Moment of Religious Rupture: The Gospel passage Mark 7 is traditionally understood as the definitive point where Judaism and Christianity diverge. This interpretation hinges on the reading that Jesus, in this chapter, invalidates kashrut (kosher laws), a fundamental aspect of Jewish religious practice. The source notes that major scholarly biblical commentaries across different theological perspectives largely agree on this interpretation, viewing Jesus as permitting all foods previously forbidden by the Torah.
The Critical Distinction Between Dietary Laws (Kashrut) and Purity/Impurity Laws: A key element of the source's argument is the necessary distinction between the Torah's dietary laws (determining which foods are permitted or forbidden for Jews based on species, slaughter method, etc., which apply universally) and the separate system of purity and impurity laws (which concern ritual defilement through contact with specific things like dead bodies or bodily fluxes). While sometimes confused, these are presented as two distinct systems within Torah law, and the source argues that Mark and Jesus understood this difference. Pure/impure (tahor/tuma'h) refers to ritual status often linked to Temple service or priestly offerings, while permitted/forbidden (muttar/assur) refers to the inherent status of a food based on kosher rules.
Pharisaic Extensions Regarding Purity and Food: The source explains that the Pharisees extended the application of purity laws, particularly legislating that eating kosher food that had come into contact with impurities would render the eater impure. This led to practices like ritual hand washing before eating bread, intended to prevent defilement. This Pharisaic view, that ingesting defiled food causes impurity, is presented as an innovation beyond the core biblical system, where impurity primarily resulted from contact or fluxes from the body, and only certain foods (like carrion) caused impurity upon ingestion.
Jesus' Rejection of "Tradition of the Elders" as Prioritizing Human Precepts: Jesus' conflict with the Pharisees in Mark 7 is framed as a protest against their "tradition of the Elders," which he saw as humanly created rules that were being given precedence over, or even used to void, the commandments of God found in the written Torah. The example of the Corban vow, where declaring one's possessions as an offering to God was allegedly used to evade the commandment to honor and support parents, is given as another instance where Pharisaic tradition is seen as supplanting God's word. Jesus' citation of Isaiah is presented as highlighting this issue of prioritizing human precepts over divine commands.
Re-Interpreting Mark 7:15-19 as Addressing Purity, Not Kashrut: The source offers an alternative reading of the controversial phrase "thus he purified all foods" (Mark 7:19). Instead of meaning Jesus permitted all kinds of food, it is interpreted to mean he "purified all foods" in the sense of rejecting the Pharisaic teaching that ingesting ritually defiled kosher food renders the eater impure. The core of the controversy is seen as being about the Pharisaic extension of purity rules (like hand washing based on food causing impurity), not about abandoning the rules regarding inherently forbidden species (kashrut). Jesus' statement that things coming out defile a person is understood as a parable, drawing on the literal Torah rule that fluxes from the body cause impurity, to teach a deeper lesson: that moral defilement from within (evil intentions) is more significant than external ritual impurity caused by food or lack of hand washing. This is presented as a deep interpretation of the Law, not an abrogation of it.