Bible Review

Douglas, In the Wilderness, p. 24.

Other strains of Jewish apocalyptic thought entertained less wholesome fantasies: Some speak of the destruction or subjugation of Gentile nations. But the inclusive strain is the one that matters most both for later rabbinic tradition and, obviously, for those Jews who shaped the beliefs of the first generation of the Church. For the full argument, and the ways in which this interpretation ties Jesus’ mission in with subsequent Christianity, see Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ, pp. 133–176.

Sanders, Borg, Crossan and Wright all assume the historicity of the Temple incident; Sanders interprets it as prophecy (as I did above); the others, as symbolic protest. I have in the past considered this incident as historical; recently, however, I have come to question whether it in fact originates in evangelical tradition; see Paula Fredriksen, “What You See Is What You Get: Context and Content in Current Research on the Historical Jesus,” Theology Today, April 1995.

Compare a dialogue between Jesus and a Levite given in a late-fourth-century papyrus from Oxyrynchus (5, No. 840): Challenged by the Levite, Jesus insists that he has prepared properly to enter the Temple area, having immersed in “the pool of David.”

Paul thinks so; Peter thinks not; and Barnabas and “the other Jews” (that is, Jewish Christians) side with Peter.

The Greek reads, literally, “cleansing all foods” (katharizon panta ta bromata).