Review of Jodi Magness, Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit

Jodi Magness. Stone and Dung, Oil and Spit: Jewish Daily Life in the Time of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans. 2011. This book covers far more aspects related to Jewish daily life in Palestine during the late Second Temple period than the first part of its title would suggest, including hand washing, Sabbath observance, dietary practices, clothing, and burial customs, to name a few. The introductory chapter, “Footprints in Archaeology and Text,” sets the stage for the discussion of ancient Jewish daily life by considering some of the distinctive characteristics that set Jews of Palestine apart from other peoples in the Roman world. Jodi Magness emphasizes the need for considering not only cultic or religious aspects, but also socio-economic factors in order to appreciate the differences between Jewish groups during the late Second Temple period (p.9). This valuable hermeneutical rule informs Magness’ discussion and interpretation of the material culture and literary sources throughout her book. Chapter Two, “Purifying the Body and the Hands,” centers on matters related to purity—a prominent issue throughout the book. Indeed, purity functions almost as a unifying theme for Magness’ entire project, arising in various discussions dealing with anything from Sabbath keeping to burial customs. Magness underscores the widespread observance of purity laws among various sectors of the Jewish population in the late Second Temple period by pointing to various archaeological findings (e.g., immersion pools) from Palestine (p. 16). The data presented on pp. 16–17 suggests that a larger concentration of ritual baths existed in the Judean/Jerusalem area than in Galilee, although Magness supposes the Sea of Galilee could have been used for immersion by certain habitants of villages such as Capernaum (p. 17). The discussion of the regional distribution of such pools is of some importance for evaluating whether different degrees in halakic practice existed between Galileans and Judeans. Magness, unfortunately, does not delve into such matters, although elsewhere she does differentiate between the practices and customs of the Jerusalem elite and other groups such as the Qumranites. When discussing hand washing, Magness makes the reasonable remark, often stated by other scholars, that the “need for hand washing before meals arose because the Pharisees and perhaps other groups demanded that ordinary food be eaten in a state of purity that otherwise was required only for sacrificial food. . . .” (p. 18) I find little to object with this statement, and the archaeological data Magness brings to the forefront in her discussion proves most valuable for clarifying many passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the New Testament, as well as rabbinic literature. Thus, on p. 19, Magness points to plastered basins found at certain archaeological sites that might have been used for the immersion of hands. Possibly, m. Hagigah 2:5 could also refers to such a practice. This data could in turn elucidate Luke’s claim that the Pharisees would immerse (their hands) before eating (Luke 11:38). Rather than referring to the immersion of the whole body (as the sectarians in Qumran would do), it could well be that Luke was describing the practice observed among certain Pharisees of immerging hands before eating (cf. Magness’ comments on p. 204 n. 48). It is comforting for this reader to see Magness conclude that though Jesus opposed the Pharisaic requirement to eat ordinary food in ritual purity, there is “no evidence that he rejected biblical food laws prohibiting the consumption of unclean animals and requiring temple offerings to be eaten in a state of purity” (pp. 24–25; cf. p. 204 n. 48). In other words, Jesus differed with the Pharisees on matters of ritual innovation that held no scriptural basis, while assuming that the traditional and unquestioned practices related to kashrut and the Jewish purity system, as found in the Mosaic Torah, would continue to be upheld (cf. p. 23). Here and elsewhere, it would have been intriguing to see how Magness would have interacted with some of the New Testament scholarship written in German and French on Jesus’ attitude toward purity. I think specifically of the works of K. Berger (“Jesus als Pharisäer und frühe Christen als Pharisäer,” Novum Testamentum 30 [1988]: 231–62) and more recently C. Grappe (“Jésus et l’impureté,” Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 84 [2004]: 393–417), the latter author, in my opinion, taking the idea of “invasive holiness” too far to mean that ritual law had essentially been discarded by Jesus because of his eschatological orientation. But Magness wisely steers away from getting entangled in the ocean of secondary scholarship on the New Testament and focuses on the primary sources, both literary and archaeological. Chapter 3, entitled “Creeping and Swarming Creatures, Locusts, Fish, Dogs, Chickens, and Pigs,” covers many aspects pertinent for understanding kashrut in ancient times. The rabbis declared that among the swarming creatures only the eight vermin listed in Lev 11:29–30 were defiling. Magness argues that the Qumran sect took a more stringent position, viewing all swarming creatures that were forbidden for consumption as impure (p. 34). E.P. Sanders in his earlier work (Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah [London: SCM Press, 1990], 138) had initially misunderstood Lev 11:33–36 to refer primarily to insects, implying that insects could transmit impurity to vessels and liquids and were one of the primary sources of preoccupation for ancient Jews in so far as ritual impurity was concerned. Nevertheless, H. Maccoby provided a corrective in his book (Ritual and Morality: The Ritual Purity System and Its Place in Judaism [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999], 69), when he stated that Lev 11:33–36 referred (at least according to the rabbinic understanding) only to the eight categories of vermin singled out in Lev 11:29–30. In other words, dead insects do not render vessels, moist food and liquids impure; only the eight vermin do. Indeed, Sanders later admitted this mistake in his subsequent book (Judaism: Practice and Belief [SCM Press: London, 1992) 520 n. 17). Magness, however, now makes the claim that at least the Qumran sect would have thought that all sweeping creatures were defiling. This could imply, even if Magness does not explicitly make the claim, that the vessels and liquids of the Qumran sect would acquire impurity on regular basis because of the many (dead) insects (“swarming creatures of the air”) that would inevitably invade the houses of Jews living in ancient, hot Palestine. Might it not have been more practical for the Qumran sect to declare all swarming creatures, including land-based swarming creatures such as worms and larvae (frequently found in foodstuffs such as fruit) as well as gnats (technically not a creature that “swarms in the water,” but nevertheless found in liquids such as wine) as forbidden (but not impure in the sense of defiling) for consumption rather than defiling (i.e., rendering something or someone ritually impure)? I believe the passage Magness cites (CD 12:12–13, 19–20) is open to such an interpretation. CD 12:11, following the language of Lev 11:44, only states that a person should not make his or her soul detestable (אל תשקצו איש את נפשו), but Magness seems to understand the verb תשקצו in the sense of defiling, that is, to render impure. Magness correctly argues that the Qumran sect would have viewed the consumption of gnats found in liquids such as wine as forbidden, unlike some of the rabbinic sages who did allow these little insects to be consumed if they were found in liquids (see t. Terumot 7:11 and b. Hullin 67a). But if the Qumranites considered insects found in water as defiling, would they not have to discard the entire drink (along with the vessel containing it, depending on what material it was made out of) rather than simply strain the gnats and then drink the liquid? As Magness correctly argues (p. 36), the saying in Matt 23:24, with its critique against the “Pharisees” for straining gnats out of liquids but swallowing camels, reflects a halakic controversy over the issue of consuming small insects that inevitably found their way into liquids such as wine and vinegar. In my opinion, the Matthean saying makes better sense against a halakic backdrop that views gnats in liquids simply as forbidden rather than impure. Otherwise, straining would be a futile exercise, since, so I suppose, the dead gnats (and other insects) would render the liquids impure (cf. Maccoby, Ritual and Morality, 71). Magness’ discussion at this point could have benefited from a sharper distinction between the categories “permitted/forbidden” and “pure/impure.” In her discussion on locusts, fish, and bread, Magness’ reference to the discovery of imported amphoras and fish bones in Herodian palaces of Jerusalem, Masada, Jericho, and Herodium is most pertinent for the debate about Gentile impurity and Jewish-Gentile table fellowship (p. 39). These findings show that Roman fish sauces were popular among some Jews (e.g., the Jerusalem elite) who were willing to consume Gentile products imported from as far as Spain. I think it is possible to interpret these archaeological findings as evidence that certain Jews were willing to eat food items manufactured by Gentiles, provided these items were kosher, because they did not view Gentiles as ritually impure. These findings strengthen the thesis made by Sanders, J. Klawans, C. Hayes, among others, that there were Jews who were willing to eat with Gentiles and even consume their food under certain circumstances. The material data Magness discusses in Chapter Four, “Household Vessels: Pottery, Oil Lamps, Glass, Stone, and Dung,” confirms this impression. The presence of a wide range of imported wares such as jars (containing Gentile wine!) in Jewish Quarter Mansions of Jerusalem from the Heriod Period shows that some Jews of Palestine, at least the Judean elites, were willing to consume imported goods produced by Gentiles (p. 57). This is quite striking, given the particular suspicion held by Jews toward Gentile wine because of its possible association with idolatry (see especially the rabbinic discussions in tractate Avodah Zarah). Magness’ findings should be brought into conversation with P. Tomson’s seminal work on Paul and halakah (Paul and the Jewish Law [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990]), which shows that Paul, like the House of Hillel, focused on the intention of the Jewish consumer rather than suspecting all Gentile products as having been offered to idols. It could well be that the Jerusalem elite, which purchased such imported Gentile goods, held a similar and pragmatic “don’t ask don’t tell” policy toward Gentile foodstuffs: they did not bother to verify whether such products had been previously offered to idols and conveniently assumed that they were not. How could they really check this matter, anyways, as some of the items were transported from as far away as Spain? It should be stressed, however, that purity was no light matter even for the Jerusalem elite. Many of them belonged to priestly circles, and the presence of immersion pools and stone vessels in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem attests to a real concern for respecting the Jewish purity system (p. 56). The rest of chapter four deals with vessels made from a variety of materials (glass, stone, dung, etc.) and their relationship to purity issues. Those interested in the Jewish purity system will find this section most relevant for the ongoing inquiry into matters of ritual (im)purity. Again, I find myself wondering about possible variations between Galilean and Judean practice. On p. 70, Magness refers to the “ubiquity of stone vessels” and believes that such utensils were produced out of concern for purity, but then acknowledges that the largest number of stone vessels come from sites in Jerusalem, with most of the workshops for producing such items found so far in the region of Judea. Does this observation indicate that matters of ritual impurity were of greater importance for Judeans than Galileans? The question is not dealt with and deserves further treatment. Readers will find in Chapter 5, “Dining Customs and Communal Meals,” a plethora of information pertinent for the elucidation of passages from the New Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other ancient Jewish literature. Some of the socio-economic factors mentioned in the introduction of the book come to the forefront of this chapter as Magness discusses dining customs among the poor and rich (pp. 77–79). Once again, Magness makes a very reasonable judgment on Jesus’ attitude toward the law when discussing the plucking of the grain incident: “Because Jesus asked his disciples to live an itinerant lifestyle, he allowed them to harvest grain on the Sabbath over the protests of the Pharisees, on the grounds that they needed to eat” (p. 78). The argument had already been made, among others, by Matthias Klinghardt (Gesetz und Volk Gottes, [WUNT 2.32; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988], 229). In chapter 5, Magness also brings to the forefront parallels between Josephus’ description of Essene dining customs and those of the Qumran sect as attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls and archaeological findings. Throughout her book, Magness points to many other interesting connections between the halakaic practices of the Essenes, as described by Josephus, and the Qumran sect. This information is of immense importance for the ongoing discussion concerning the identification of the Qumran sect with the Essenes or one of their offshoots. Chapter 6, “Sabbath Observance and Fasting,” takes the reader into the realm of Sabbath keeping and fasting. Here, Magness continues to underscore some important parallels between Josephus’ description of Sabbath observance among the Essenes and Sabbath halakah in the Dead Sea Scrolls (p. 85). She also provides an extensive and interesting discussion on fasting, arguing that some Jews fasted on the Sabbath (pp. 90–96). Chapter 7, “Coins,” contains an interesting analysis of Essene attitudes toward wealth. Once again, Magness provides much food for thought concerning the relationship between the Essenes of Josephus and Philo and the Qumran sect. In chapter eight, “Clothing and Tzitzit,” Magness reminds modern Western readers of the widespread reality of nudity in the Roman world—Palestine included (pp. 107–9). She suggests that members of the Qumran sect wore tassels made out of linen rather than wool in order to avoid transgressing the Mosaic commandment of sha’atnez (p. 115). Her comments on Jesus and tassels (pp. 118–20) provides a refreshing corrective to those New Testament exegetes who often gravitate toward such passage of the synoptic gospels in order to make wide sweeping remarks concerning Jesus’ eradication of the Mosaic Torah: “. . . most Jews would not have been concerned by the potential impurity conveyed by unclean people touching Jesus’ tzitzit” (p. 120) Chapter 9, “Oil and Spit,” begins with a comparison between Josephus’ reference to the Essene abstention from oil and sectarian opinions on the matter (CD 12:15–17; 11QT 49:11). Magness concludes that Josephus’ description of Essene views on oil and impurity is accurate (p. 121). Similarly, Josephus’ account of the Essene position on spitting underlines an overlap with Qumranite practice: just as Josephus (War 2:147) claims that the Essenes refrained from spitting in the midst (εἰς μέσους) of their assembly, so 1QS 7:13 penalizes a person who spits in the midst (אל תוך) of a meeting (pp. 125–26). Chapter 10, “Toilets and Toilet Habits,” reminds modern readers that “the Roman world was a filthy, malodorous, and unhealthy place, certainly by contemporary standards” and that the “Western obsession with toilet privacy and hygiene was not shared by ancient peoples” (p. 130). Nevertheless, as Magness points out, the Temple Scroll, War Scroll, and Josephus show that the Qumranites (and/or Essenes) held a different attitude toward toilet habits (p. 133). Not only did they seek to discard of human waste in a private and discrete manner, but, unlike other Jews, they considered human excrement impure. Here, Magness grants an important section of this chapter to discussing the impurity of excrement in ancient Judaism (pp. 136–42). She convincingly shows that only the Qumran sect and some priestly circles considered human excrement impure. Other Jews, such as the rabbis and Jesus (cf. Mark 7:19/Matt 15:17), denied that human defecation could defile. Although Magness does not explicitly draw this conclusion in her work, the archaeological findings and literary sources she discusses in a previous section on pp. 74–75 (vessels made out of dung) show that animal dung, and we might add human urine, was not viewed as impure by any Jews of Palestine, including those at Qumran. Chapter 11, “Tombs and Burial Customs,” brings the modern reader to the world of ancient burial practices. Here, Magness underscores elements from Roman practice that shaped the lifestyle, or better, “deathstyle,” as she puts it, of the Judean elite. She sees the phenomenon of placing bones in ossuaries as indirectly deriving from Roman burial customs (pp. 152–55). The socio-economic considerations signaled in the introduction of the book become most important for appreciating the various ways in which rich and poor Jews of ancient Palestine buried their dead. Magness argues that only more affluent Jews buried their dead in rock-cut tombs (p. 156). “Common” Jews, on the other hand, had no choice but to dispose of their dead “in individual graves dug into grounds, analogous to the way we bury our dead today” (p. 157). In her treatment of Jesus’ burial, Magness argues that the gospels provide an accurate (although not necessarily historical) portrayal that is largely consistent with archaeological evidence and Jewish Law (pp. 165–72). All is fine with this kind of argumentation, but the following halakic dilemma embedded within the synoptic gospels is not treated: all three synoptic gospel authors reveal that burials and purchases are not pursued on the Sabbath. Thus, Joseph of Arimathea hurries to bury Jesus before the Sabbath, while the women visit Jesus’ tomb only after the Sabbath is over. Nevertheless, the synoptic traditions contain a problem in chronology, which in turn creates a halakic dilemma: if Jesus was buried on Passover, it makes little sense for Joseph to avoid desecrating the Sabbath by burying Jesus on another holy day! The problem has been signaled by some commentators (e.g., Morna Dorothy Hooker, The Gospel according to Saint Mark [BNTC 2; London: A & C Black, 1991], 380; Lutz Doering, “Sabbath Laws in the New Testament Gospels,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature [eds. Reimund Bieringer, et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2010], 252–53), but has not been adequately addressed, let alone solved. I have made a number of suggestions in my own research, including the possibility that the gospel of John provides a more “credible” portrayal of the events than the synoptic authors, in so far as chronology is concerned. We are reminded once again of how little is known about the actual déroulement of Jesus’ execution and burial. In her final chapter and epilogue, Magness broadly traces some lines of halakic continuity between before and after 70 C.E. This short chapter provides a certain closure to a book that offers the reader with a generous array of data about Jewish life in antiquity. The book is of immense value for understanding many halakic issues of the Second Temple period, especially matters related to the Jewish purity system. Those who rely too heavily on literary sources, at the cost of neglecting the archaeological record, will benefit from this concrete corrective provided by a scholar who applies judicious and informed comments to the data concerned. New Testament exegetes will surely want to consult this book, as it contains numerous sections of importance for elucidating passages from the gospels. Magness has also made a contribution to the ongoing debate about the relationship between the Qumran sect and the Essenes (as described in Josephus and Philo) by focusing on halakic issues in the literary and archaeological records. Her work is a manifestation of the promising heuristic value that can be generated when archaeology is seriously incorporated into the historical and exegetical inquiry of ancient Jewish and Christian texts. No one will want to ignore this work written by a prominent archaeologist, well versed in the material culture and ancient literary sources, who draws from the best of secondary scholarship written in English and Modern Hebrew. Isaac W. Oliver University of Michigan