(13 votes, average: 4.46 out of 5)
Loading...In all the Gospels Jesus enters into the temple in Jerusalem and becomes enraged by what he sees there. He overturns tables and drives merchants out and shuts down the operation. Could this actually have happened? Or is it an exaggerated – or completely invented – account?
[[RECALL, in case you haven’t been reading each of the posts in this thread: I’ve been trying to show how experts in the phenomenon of “memory” can help us reflect on the Gospel traditions about Jesus. Memory is a much wider and more expansive phenomenon than most people imagine. Memories involve what we’ve done, what we’ve experienced, what we’ve learned, what we’ve heard, and what we simply recall about the past whether we ourselves experienced it and whether our recollections are just personal or collectively shared by a broader swath of our community (e.g., our “memories” of the Clinton presidency or of the Civil War) .
When seen in this broader sense, the Gospels contain some “historically true” memories of Jesus but also some distorted or fake memories. In the current thread of posts I’ve been discussing key passages of the Passion narratives of the Gospels. All these are taken from my book that discusses such things in large, Jesus Before the Gospels (HarperOne, 2016).]]
******************************
The Cleansing of the Temple
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree that when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem he went into the temple and made a disturbance there. In our earliest account, Mark, we are told that he drove out those who were selling and buying in the temple, overturned the tables of those who were exchanging money and the chairs of those selling doves, and did not “allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.” He then declared, from a passage of Scripture, that the temple was to be “a house of prayer for all the nations,” but that they had made it “a cave of thieves.” This irritated the Jewish chief priests and scribes who began to look for a way to destroy him; but “the multitude” was astonished at his teaching (Mark 11:15-19).
To understand this passage it is necessary to know the context. Who is selling animals? Who is exchanging money? And why?
People coming to Jerusalem from long distances would not be able to
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I’m logged in but still can’t see the rest of the article.
Click on Help and send a note to Support. There’s usually an easy explanation for it.
I read from somewhere, that the whole story is an allegory with a theological message.
First Jesus curses the fig tree, not fruit because of season.
Then he cleanses the temple.
When returning to the tree, it has withered.
The allegory: Fig tree is a symbol of Israel, in this case the temple cult. But it’s not needed anymore because of Jesus making a new covenant. The message is completely theological without any real history.
What do scholars say about this explanation? I’ve only read it once without any commentary.
Yup, scholars came up with idea! But there’s a big difference between saying the story functions allegorically and saying the author thought it didn’t happen. Stories are often told in such a way as to convey a deeper meaning, even though the stories themselves really happened. I’d say there’s nothing in this story to suggest Mark considered it non-historical, and without some hints that way, I’d say it’s problematic then to claim he “really didn’t mean it.” If there’s no indication of that in the text, then the same thing could be said about any of the stories (the resurrection; the crucifixion; etc.) — and in the end…, there’s no way to know where to end!
Professor Ehrman, do you think it is possible that the author of Matthew never attended a Passover in Jerusalem? I would think that if he had seen the magnitude of the crowds and the size of the Temple Mount at Passover he would not have written this description of events.
I think it’s highly likely he never was never at a festival in Jerusalem.
I have heard (I think from Domenic Crossan?) that the reason Jesus performed this action was that the temple authorities were appointed by the Romans and thus the temple had be taken over as a puppet of the Roman Empire.
I can’t remember of Crossan said that, but it sounds like the kind of thing he’d say. It’s an interesting option, but I’d say the problem is that Jesus does not malign the Romanized aspect of it (and in fact the Romans left the sacrifical cult alone) but the internal corruption of it, making a business out of the cultic activies.
Wonderful post! I enjoyed it very much.
This all makes sense, but to me it beggars belief that there isn’t a valid gist memory behind it. Something happened in the temple to put Jesus on the radar (or more on the radar?) of the authorities, probably during the last week of his life, but that somehow didn’t trigger his immediate arrest. The fact that he wasn’t immediately arrested I suspect owes to the chief priests’ desire to keep a lid on things – that Jesus was probably known to them already, and they knew that he already had a following within the city. They probably didn’t arrest him on the spot because they didn’t want to spark a potential riot. Or, perhaps, whatever happened was over so quickly that Jesus and his companions had melted away into the crowd before anyone really knew what had happened or had time to act. At least, these are the potential scenarios that makes the most sense to me. Apparently with Judas’ help, they waited till later, and at night, to arrest him.
I think there is a gist memory, that Jesus did cause a mild disruptin in the temple.
I just serendipitously came upon this collection of essays that seem quite closely related to the things you’ve been posting on recently. UFOs rather than Biblical events, but still in the vein of “how people see, remember, and recount events.}
https://www.academia.edu/101922617/The_Reliability_of_UFO_Witness_Testimony
Ha! I deal with UFO abduction narratives in my book Jesus Before the Gospels. There’s some terrifically interesting studies of the phenomenon, and I had a colleague in my department (Religious Studies!) who used to teach an entire semester-long course on it!
Really Bart, you think it’s a historical fact that Jesus did something in the Temple based on what someone wrote somewhere at some time?
http://skepticaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/
I think it’s likely Jesus did something in the temple, yes, but I think it’s completely unlikely that someone there said something about it in writing. There is, of course, zero evidence that anyone did.
This violent temple protest is one of the most crucial pieces of evidence about the historical Jesus and his death. Not much doubt it was for real, even though we can’t know precisely what was said and done. The gospels downplay and distance Jesus further and further from this event. Mark says Jesus was violently stopping vendors and buyers (actual worshippers!) and intercalates the episode over two days with the cursing of the fig tree. Matthew simplifies it all to one day and even says Jesus healed the lame and blind at the same time to make the negative picture more positive! Luke downplays it further into only 25 words, omits the violent actions, and only says he thwarted sellers. John distances it further by placing it 2 or 3 years earlier at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry so that the crisis caused by Lazarus’ raising is the catalyst for Jesus’ execution, not the temple protest as in the Synoptics. So if the gospels (starting around 70 CE with Mark) gradually distance Jesus from this event, don’t you think we should work backwards to 30 CE and expect it to be a bigger incident than what they say?
I don’t think you can use literary tendencies *after* Mark to show Mark’s own tendencies. If it were an even bigger incident than Mark, our first account, relates, I’m not sure what it could have entailed. Mark himself indicats that Jesus shut down the *entire* sacrificial cult. Everything was brought to a standstill. (He did not allow “anyone” ot carry “anything” through the temple; 11:16.) The reason for thinking this simply could not have happened is because of our knowledge of historical realities. Roman soldiers were stationed around (and inside) the temple precisely to *prevent* disturbances. jesus would have been arrested on the spot.
If Matt, Luke, and John downplay and distance the incident (compared to Mark), it’s not unreasonable to think Mark already did the same with something that was known to be bigger and worse.
Paula Fredriksen (whom I respect) thinks Mark invented the whole story after 70 CE to assuage the shock of the Temple’s destruction by showing that Jesus had previously disapproved of the Temple and predicted its fall. But inventing the Temple incident seems highly unlikely to me. Mark is trying to defend who Jesus is and why he died, and there are 100s of other ways Mark could show Jesus disapproving the Temple that don’t involve a violent rampage. Why would Mark invent or exaggerate this aggressive assault to make a point? That causes more problems than it solves. It makes Jesus look like a troublemaker and authorities had good reason to execute him.
Jesus wasn’t the only one to attack the Temple in some kind of way. In both his Jewish War and his Antiquities, Josephus tells the story of Judas and Matthias who rallied a band of young man to act decisively to tear down the blasphemous golden eagle which Herod had erected over the Temple gate. They weren’t afraid to act daringly in what they perceived to be obedience to the Law to defend God from dishonor and blasphemy. And they weren’t afraid to die in the process to leave a legacy and example for others. As they acted, others joined in the effort. Soldiers rushed in, but not before they accomplished their deed and tore the eagle down. Forty stragglers were captured, but many others escaped. The ringleaders were caught and executed. Plenty of differences, but noteworthy similarities too. The Temple was vulnerable to a quick unexpected onslaught from religious zealots.
This is so absurdly pedantic in a Fundamentalist-minded, word-twisting way.
“Mark is saying that Jesus shut down the entire temple cult, by himself.”
No he is not.
Mark 11:16 reads: “and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.”
I have had aggressive bums at Walmart do exactly that at an entrance (one of several for any large facility), at least until a security officer intervenes, or a street demonstrator block an entire intersection (which can go on until the police arrive in a big city), but the verse is NOT “saying that Jesus shut down the entire temple cult, by himself.”
This book is silly.
No one seriously doubts some apocolyptic weirdo might have caused a disturbance or blocked an entrance for a bit at the temple. Even in our own time, these sort of public disturbances by passionately-politicized creeps happen all the time.
It is not even far-fetched to suggest that Jesus might have tried the temple ruckus-thing a couple of times over his 2‐or‐3‐year ministry. His behavior was bad enough to get him the death penalty.
But you twisted Mark 11:16 into something more, to make your own theological point.
The Fundamentalist mindset does not change, even if the theology does.
I”m afraid no one outside the entrance of a Walmart has ever stopped what happens inside so that “no one” can carry “anything” in one of the aisles. What are you thinking? And the temple was not like a Walmart; it was an enormous place. (Or an intersection?? You may want to stroll around the temple mount sometime and think about how that would work…)
It’s a little odd that you thinking I’m interpreting this in a fundamentalist way. This point about Mark 11:16 was been made by vehemently anti-fundamentalist readers of the text long before I ever saw the light of day.
You wrote, “Mark is saying that Jesus shut down the entire temple cult, by himself…. The space within the temple walls was large enough to accommodate twenty-five American football fields. How are we to imagine that Jesus shut down the entire operation? It seems completely implausible.”
Indeed. It is implausible. One man would need to be super-human to “shut down the entire operation.” And it would be a similar, concrete‐mindset to insist such a facility (25 football fields) then had a single-point of entry/exit for Superman to do so. But Mark is NOT saying “Jesus shut down the entire temple cult”… Mark 11:16 simply reads, “and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.”
It requires a fundamental twisting-of-words to turn Mark 11:16 into “Jesus shut down the entire temple cult, by himself.” It requires a literalist suspension of belief to insist one man “shut down” an entire facility measuring 25 football fields.
Whatever disturbance Jesus caused was probably more analagous to what nutters do today in trying to block big facilities or intersections, and it pissed-off the temple authorities.
“What are you thinking?” Something different than you. I have questioned a biblical authority. Clearly a sin!
Nope, not a sin! I’m just not clear what you’re thinking. If Jesus stopped everyone from carrying vessels and knives (skeuoi) etc. throughout the entire temple, the sacrificial system would have ceased. Vessels and knives are a sine qua non for a sacrificial cult. I’m assuming Mark meant it, and if so, it doesn’t take a fundamentalist to realize what he’s saying, or to realize that it’s just not possible. (I’m not sure where you’re getting the translation “merchandise” from? The word is SKEUOS)
1. So whatever Jesus did was so insignificant, that the near by Roman soldiers did not even notice that anything happened?
2. Why did the author of John put the story at the beginning of Jesus ministry?
1. It’s an enormous place; they weren’t standing in every location, no. 2. Much debated issue — usually it’s thought that it fits better there for John’s purpose, since it shows that right off the bat Jesus and the Jewish authorities are completely at odds. That sets the stage for John’s portryal of Jesus’ ministry and revelation.
Bart: Are you still doing the ‘Misquoting Jesus’ podcast videos? I haven’t seen anything since you took your trip to the Galapagos. I hope you continue to produce those as I really looked forward to viewing them on a weekly basis.
Yup, they come out every week. One came out today.
What is your intuition about why John placed this episode at the beginning?
I think he wanted to set the stage for his gospel, in wihch Jesus the revelation of the true God is completely misunderstood and rejected by Jews who had a false understanding of their own religion. Happens at the very outset.
In the introduction to the second edition of From Jesus to Christ, Paula Fredriksen explains her reasons for doubting the historicity of the cleansing of the temple. I only have two hundred words, so I can’t give her full argument, but here’s an except: “Not until I started walking around the Temple Mount did I begin to understand how huge the Temple area must have been—specifically its outermost court, around the perimeter of which, beneath the protection from sun or storm offered by the stoa or the Royal Portico, those who sold could be found. Its very size shrank the significance of Jesus’ putative action and prompted a question: If Jesus had made such a gesture, how many would have seen it? . . . The effect of Jesus’ gesture would have been muffled by the sheer press of pilgrims. How worried, then, need the priests have been?”
What do you make of Fredriksen’s argument? (Again, apologies for being unable to give it in its entirety.)
I completely agree that there’s no way the event as described in the Gospels could have happened. But that’s not the same as asking if *some* kind of minor incident took place, and I think E. P. Sanders and otehrs are surely correct that it probably did. It’s too widely attested and rooted in the tradition, I think.
Matthew 21:13 is a remez, which means hint in Hebrew. It’s a rabbinical hermeneutic where a rabbi quotes a brief snippet from the Jewish Scriptures and the audience has to rely on its mastery of the Hebrew Bible to deduce the fuller meaning. It’s usually the passage in Scripture directly before or after the ‘clue’ that is Jesus’s actual message. The “house of prayer” is a reference to Isaiah 56:7, while a “den of thieves” is a reference to Jeremiah 7:11. If you read around those passages, you’ll see that so long as the “sons of the foreigner…join themselves to the Lord”, who obey the Sabbath, and uphold the Mosaic Law, then those Gentiles are welcome “in My house of prayer”. The passage in Jeremiah is in direct contrast, leveling accusations of disloyalty and reversion to “abominations” while threatening them that God “will cast you out of My sight”. Jesus may not have been happy with the people who set up shop on temple grounds for commercial purposes while dealing in coinage that would have had idolatrous imagery of Roman emperors engraved on them and may have consider them unworthy of the sanctity of the Temple.
I find these words disconcerting:
“Jesus came to indicate that God had established a new order,based on Jesus’ own words and actions…”
A new order based on Jesus violent physical action against the Temple ( a felony in our parlance) and violent threatening and condemning words?
” ……Jesus changed the worship of God in an even deeper and more profound sense. Worshiping God is not a matter of outward form, conforming to set rituals and established cultic practices. God can be found not in human buildings, institutions, and rites…..”
Like the modesty and pure spirituality of the Catholic Church?
“God …can be found among all those who follow Jesus in cleansing their religion of outward show and ceremony ….”.
Idem regarding outwardness and ceremony.
But the truly disturbing line is”cleansing their religion” (doubling on the “cleansing” of the Temple),an offensive line sung in Handel’s Messiah as “he shall purify the sons of Levi”.
Here and above lay the deepest fountain of anti-Jewish feeling,after”deicide” and “betrayal”.
Apologetics don’t deal well with this violent scene,if it was indeed such.
Couldn’t Jesus’ accumulated anticipation,anxiety,fear,an altered state of mind facing his dark hour have builtup to an unbearable high,setting him off triggered by a trifle?
I think a whole lot rides on whether we are talking about what *really* happened, and what the Gospels *report* as having happened, and if the latter, *which* Gospel. The scene in John’s account is especially disturbing.
I don’t have to strain that much to think that Jesus overturned a few tables and that if he saw anyone with skeue – not skeuoi! – he did not let it go without protest but skewered them verbally. Skeue could include military equipment. Could this be a protest against paramilitary activity or connivance at such? That would give literal force to ‘brigands’ cave’
σκευη — sorry, my bad. We don’t have any record of military equipment in the temple, no. We do know of lots of vessels used for sacrifices though.
What do you think of the idea that the Cleansing of the Temple is an enactment (street theater if you like) of Zechariah 14:21 that on the Day of the Lord there shall no longer be a trader in the house of the Lord of Hosts?
It seems to be linked.
The cursing of the fig tree as he’s arriving to Jerusalem seems weird to me. It’s one of the violent sides of Jesus, albeit tame compared to the whip version of the temple story from later texts. Is Mark trying to convey that the people who passed on that road before Jesus had picked the buds clean so the tree would never bear fruit? And like the temple will die because of the greed of a few or everyone’s failure to protect it until harvest? They had just left Bethphage or the “House of Unripe Fruit” so he drives home the idea that these figs never get to ripen. Too many greedy people the closer you get to the temple. The tree dying the next day says “it could happen tomorrow”. Jesus didn’t kill the tree. “They” killed it.
This adds to the separation the writer is trying to put between the Christian and Jewish systems, What are the political and social reasons behind how this part of the story changes over time in other gospels? I suspect it got more magical and more clearly anti-jewish to cater to changing times, audiences, and power structures?
Given where the passage first occurs in Mark — Jesus curses the tree, cleanses the temple, they find the tree withered — and given the fact that the fig tree is sometimes a symbol for the nation of Israel, it’s usually thought that this is meant to be a symbolic gesture. “Every tree that does not bear fruit will be chopped down and thrown into the fire” (or in this case withered). The nation of Israel is not “bearing fruit” (living as God wants them to) and so they will be cursed (destroyed), as seen in the cleansing of the temple (destruction is near because of hwo they are behaving)