Loading...Did Jesus support of an armed uprising against Rome? Yesterday I re-posted some comments I had made years ago on the blog about Aslan’s popular book Zealot, which advances that thesis. I won’t be dealing with the entire book this time around: I’m just interested at this point in dealing with this vital question itself
Now I want to show how two data that are crucial for the “zealot hypothesis” actually make better sense with this apocalyptic understanding of Jesus. The two data involve the temple cleansing and the crucifixion itself.
If one wants to establish – as Aslan very much does want to do – that Jesus favored violence, there is no better scene to focus on than the disruption he caused in the Temple upon arriving in Jerusalem in the last week of his life. According to the earliest accounts, Jesus enters the temple, overturns the tables of those exchanging money, and drives out those who were selling sacrificial animals. In our first account, Mark’s, Jesus actually shuts down the operation of the entire temple.
The problem with using this as evidence for the historical Jesus himself is that, as critical scholars have long argued, Mark’s account simply cannot be accurate, in a literal sense, but is at best massively exaggerated. How could it be right that Jesus not only overturned the moneychangers’ tables and drove out those selling sacrificial animals, but also shut down the entire Temple cult?
The Temple precincts were *enormous*. Within the walls of the Temple you could fit 25 American football fields. How exactly did Jesus stop all the activities in the Temple? Are we to imagine that Jesus pulled this off by himself? (Aslan indicates that his disciples were helping pull it off – but that’s not what any of our sources indicate.) Moreover, it is important to note this time of year — during the Passover Festival — is precisely when the Roman prefect Pilate came to Jerusalem with troops that he stationed at pressure points — most especially the temple (as we know from the historian Josephus) in order to squash any unrest of any kind. If Jesus had caused this kind of ruckus he would have been arrested on the spot. Are we supposed to think he simply vanished into thin air?
True, it is almost certain that something happened at the Temple. But what was it? The best explanation – the one that has been most influential among scholars for the past 40 years or so – is …
Wanna keep reading? Go for it! Anyone who is a member can get not only this post but five posts of this kind each and every week, going back for eight years. It’s easy to join: we still have free memberships available for another couple of weeks. Or even better, if you can, join up by paying the small membership fee. Ever penny of it goes to charity!
Is it not correct that most scholars believe that Mark was written during or shortly after the war? If so, do these more recent events not affect the way these stories are told?
Particularly, when someone in the gospels talks about destroying the temple, would not the authors and the early readers immediately think about the actual destruction of the temple?
Yes indeed, on both scores. That’s why one needs to develop historical criteria for deciding what Jesus really said and did, since the fact that he says something in the Gospels may be something that has been put on his lips by the writer himself.
Amazing analysis. I always pictured the scene on a much smaller scale, certainly not 25 football fields. Did the gospel writers also intend the story to shift some blame for Jesus’ arrest to the Jewish authorities and away from the Romans?
Absolutely.
Professor… looking at various charts & graphics I found online, 25 football fields seems too large. Maybe 9 football fields. What am I missing? Thank you.
Not sure. How are you doing the calculations?
The attitude of Jesus you describe might be a step toward that which Crossan and Reed describe in Excavating Jesus. The Romans’ quasi-Jewish proxies in Israel had departed from the Jewish monetary systems (“divine distributive justice”) and rules in a way that so marginalized the Israelites that, when confronted by the hordes of capitalists on the the grounds of the temple built by Herod, Jesus became full of righteous rage. Regardless of the scale of such a symbolic “cleansing of the temple” (not a term I like), the undertones of Jeremiah 7 are pretty clear.
“The Temple itself was going to be destroyed.”
Why destroy the Temple? Why not destroy the people were making a profit off the holy religion of Israel and keep the Temple for all the children of God?
Not sure — but it’s a common theme among other Jews dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. Jeremiah railed agaisnt the temple and predicted its destruction, and so did the Essenes. Both, btw, were right!
What about this hypothesis: Like many other people, Jesus could see that the tensions between the Jews and the Romans in Judaea were going to boil over, and that the Jews would inevitably be the losers in any military contest. (Jerusalem only held out as long as it did because Vespasian put his attacks on pause after Nero died and he was waiting to see what would happen back in Rome.) After the Temple was in fact destroyed, the evangelists elaborated on his predictions to make Jesus the replacement for the Temple.
I think the fact that Paul never speaks of the possible destruction of the Temple, and in fact gives every indication he expects it to continue, as suggestive that Jesus’s predictions of destruction did not attract that much attention at the time.
The problem is that Paul shows remarkably scant knowledge of Jesus’ words, so we wouldn’t expect him to know about hte predictions. he knows scarcely anything else about what jesus taught either.
I know what physicists and engineers mean by “parabolic action” when applied to metal rods. What do biblical scholars like yourself mean by that term? Does it have a precise meaning or is it just a figure of speech?
Does Jesus’ action in disrupting the moneychangers mean that he is protesting the exorbitant fees that they are charging for their services? That otherwise they are performing a necessary service to remove the necessity of the pilgrims to drag their sacrificial animals hundreds of miles to the Temple?
Ha! right, physicists! A “parabolic action” is an action that is parable that is enacted, a symbolic act that has a deeper meaning. It’s not clear if Jesus is mainly upset that peopel have turned Temple worship into a commercial enterprise, but that’s a common view.
Dr Ehrman,
When reading and pondering the life of messengers sent or appointed by God, I notice a common denominator. They got angry or agitated when there was clear disobedience to God.
1 ) Noah’s people although evil and wicked, Noah was angered not because they were wicked, its because the disbelieved and would not repent.. clear disobedience to God.
2 ) Abraham was described as quiet and calm, showed anger towards his people and father for worshiping idols… clear disobedience to God
3 ) Moses showed anger when his people took up idolatry after being shown the straight path….. clear disobedience to God. just to list a few.
So it does not surprise me that Jesus was angered by the people who practiced Usury and Interest because it was also a clear disobedience to God.
In common, is the disobedience to God. Forming a military force was not commanded. They are prophets/messengers and were Warners. They understood that wrath and punishment came from God. That is why there were angry. They did not want the wrath and punishment of God Almighty on their respective people. Following God’s instructions does not lead to his wrath. Follow human whims and desires……. are consequences. We’ve been warned.
Mostly agree, Bart… except I think Jesus’ words about the Temple are even more apocalyptic than most scholars realize. I think we’ve been overlooking the obvious. There is an important textual variant at the end of Mark 13:2 in which *ALL* the Western witnesses say, “Not a stone upon a stone will be left here which will not be thrown down… and in three days another [stone] will be raised without hands.” It’s not a harmonization to Mk 14:58 (or Jn 2:19). The wording is based on Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45… which is characteristic of the author of Mark (dependence on Daniel). The words are not predicting another “temple” will be raised… grammatically, it’s saying a “stone” will be raised… the stone in Dan 2, which is the kingdom of God. The words are predicting the kingdom of God is impending (just like Mk 1:15; 9:1; 13:30; 14:62; etc). I published about this in 2018. I might take you up on your offer yesterday to explain more. Early on, I think scribes shortened Mark 13:2 to harmonize to Matt 24:2 (which lacks the words) and to avoid the difficulty of that apocalyptic prediction.
Bart: “So what’s to object? The most common answer, of course, is that Jesus was offended that people were making a profit off the holy religion of Israel. That may be right. It is worth noting that this objection to the Temple cult was not unique to Jesus. Centuries earlier the prophet Jeremiah had similar objections and voiced them rather emphatically, leading to his arrest and persecution; and the Essenes who were responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls were harsh in their criticisms of the temple and its cult. ”
Closer to the time of Jesus, the Mishnah recounts Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel angrily protesting the rise in price of a couple of sacrificial birds in the temple up to a golden denar. He expressed anger and taught in the temple to reduce the burden on women and the price went down to a quarter silver denar, one hundredth of the previously inflated price.
Simeon was a contemporary of Jesus ben Ananias, who prophesied the coming destruction of the temple and against the people of Jerusalem, who the Jewish rulers brought before Albinus, the Roman procurator who had him scourged, and before whom he was silent. Hmmm.
The cleansing of the temple in Mark is intertwined with the parable of the fig tree. Why?
The fig tree is probably a symbol for the nation of Israel. It has been cursed and its end is soon.
To me, it seems like an act that can be expected to be done by an Essene, or perhaps a rebellious Pharasee, (leaning to Hillel the Elder “branch of the Pharasee sect) against the” Jews “who in this case would (perhaps) be the Sadducees that I have understood were those who were associated with the temple administration.
Regarding the incident in the temple, the ritual and purification process was (is) a long and holy ritual, and in that case, I am sure that such a disturbance in the middle of this ritual would have made a mess for the high priest (I suppose a sadducees) to perform it.
At least I guess this guy (High priest) would have gone crazy like h ,,,,,,. and then I’m not surprised that they (the Sadducees who at least had a “line” to the Romans) managed to get this lawsuit through so quickly.
Well, that’s at least my unscholared assumptions.
Hmm? But I thought the temple destruction story was added to the Gospels after the temple was actually destroyed and, hence, was not really predicted by the historical Jesus????.
My view is that Jesus actually predicted it, as did Jeremiah long before. Nothing too weird about it; some people are predicting doom in our time! But the Gospels almost certainly containted the predictions originally.
Bart, you wrote: “My view is that Jesus actually predicted it, as did Jeremiah long before. Nothing too weird about it; some people are predicting doom in our time! But the Gospels almost certainly containted the predictions originally.”
“Containted” – I think you just coined a new word that might be particularly useful when discussing stories in the gospels!
Hey, it’s a nice word, now that you point it out! Rather apt!
I believe it has been said that the Greek of Mark’s gospel is rough and ready (compared with that of John’s for example). In the ‘Learn NT Greek’ course book I am following I have just read “Mark’s Greek is Greek written by someone who was thinking in Hebrew.” Is this a position that you have encountered before and is it reasonable, please?
None of the NT writers is at the high-end of literary Greek. But yes, Mark is rough and ready. Completely understandable, but not particularly elegant or sophisticated. John has some beautiful passages, but again nothing particularly impressive from a literary perspective.
“the Essenes who were responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls”
I’ve heard that some sections of scholarship (although I’ve yet to locate them) are now cautious about linking the Essenes to the DSS, and simply refer to the those who preserved them as the ‘Qumran Community’. What’s your view over this?
I suppose the Essenes could have produced the DSS texts, and a later community preserved them, but then if the later community held to the same beliefs and practices as the Essenes (as one might expect if they treasured and preserved the texts), then what’s the difference? If they walked like an Essene, talked like an Essene…
It’s not a recent debate but a long-standing one. There are still scholars who doubt the scrolls belong to the Essenes, but they are on the margins.
It’s not a recent debate but a long-standing one. There are still scholars who doubt the scrolls belong to the Essenes, but they are have been on the margins for a long time.
Jesus’ objection was because the money changers were WITHIN the temple grounds. Such activity should have been outside of it.
Dr. Ehrman,
How would attacking the Jewish temple even be a sign of anything negative against Rome? Did Rome count on money earned in the temple as a source of revenue for the Roman Empire?
Thanks, Jay
It wouldn’t be religious problem. The problem is that it could create riots and protests and uprisings — and that’s precisely what the Romans didn’t want. The Romans did require taxes to be paid, but I don’t think those were levied against institutions like the TEmple. But maybe someone could correct me on that.
The Romans did not, so far as I am aware, try to tax the Temple. There was a famous incident where Pilate tried to appropriate Temple funds to build an aqueduct in Jerusalem, and when thousands of Jews protested, he had his soldiers sneak in among them and then slaughter them. (One more reason to doubt the story that the crowd intimidated Pilate into releasing Barabbas.)
All Jews around the world were supposed to pay a half-shekel annual tax for the Temple’s upkeep, and I believe the Roman authorities assisted in its collection. I haven’t heard that they attempted to help themselves to any of it (there would have been a huge uproar if they had), so that also argues against their trying to tax the Temple.
The cleansing of the temple incident also lends itself to the ‘Jesus was a proto-Marxist’ theory. I would be very surprised if the money changers weren’t making huge profits from their arbitrary currency exchange rates (we’ve all seen that as tourists) and that is what really annoyed Jesus. I once had a brief exchange of views with a very religious lady who tried to say that Jesus never got angry. When I pointed out the temple cleansing incident, she at first tried to bluff it out but then conceded that I was right. I nearly suggested that she might be a ‘docetist’ by suggesting that Jesus did not have ordinary human emotions, but decided to quit while I was ahead.
Wasn’t the Temple cleansing something a Son of David, a Son of God, or a Messiah was intended, or supposed to do?
I mean, Temple Purification was something that was expected according to some messianic prophecies. At the same time, it was, to some extent, a tradition for a new king to cleanse the Temple according to biblical traditions.
Wasn’t this Temple cleansing just fulfilling prophecy?
I’m not aware of any prophecies about it, no, other than the fact that some of the prophets were also anti-Temple.
Zechariah 14:21, And there will be no longer a trader in the house of Yahweh of hosts on that day.
This is in the chapter where Zechariah is describing his “end times” scenario. So just like with his triumphant entry into Jerusalem on a donkey’s colt, Jesus is signalling that Zechariah’s apocalyptic vision is about to unfold.
I’ve watched all the lectures and debates on your YouTube channel, and read many of your books, (I’m currently reading “How Jesus became God”). One point you’ve made many times is that Pontius Pilate had no considerations or respect for Jewish laws and customs. I’m curious if the incident in the temple was a factor in Pilates decision to have Jesus executed? From Pilates point of view was it a major factor indicating insurrection? Or was it relatively minor like disturbing the peace? Or was it a non-issue for Pilate and the claims of kingship enough?
Possibly; in the trial before Pilate it isn’t mentioned. The main problem is that he called himself the king of the jews.
It is possible that the gospel reports of Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple are a case of ex eventu? One reason I doubt that Jesus said this is because Paul, who wrote pre-destruction, never mentions it and in fact assumes the temple’s continued existence.
The Essenes had a quarrel with the temple priesthood, but not with the temple itself. Could not Jesus’s “cleansing of the temple” (if it really happened) be seen in that same light?
Often is!
I think I understand that answer – it goes to my thought that Jesus’s issue was with the priesthood, not the Temple. But I’m really more interested in whether Jesus’s predictions in the gospels of the Temple’s destruction are prophecies after the fact (ex eventu), particularly given that Paul writes as though he expects nothing to happen to the Temple.
They are so widely attested in multiple sources that understand them in different ways that usually they are thought to go back to jesus himself. Paul, of course, shows almost no evidence of knowing the teachings of Jesus in general. (He quotes only a couple)
In all 4 Gospels, Jesus quotes from Jeremiah 7, as you pointed out! Jeremiah was not allowed in the temple and people wanted to kill Jeremiah for these statements…(Jer. 26, 7,11; 36:5; 36:7-11) and he predicted the destruction of Solomon’s temple. In Jer. 7:6, Jeremiah says God is against shedding innocent blood in the temple. Obviously this was the animal’s blood! This is clear in verse 7: 21-22. Animal and human sacrifice did not originate with YHWH, and I think this is what Jesus was against. I hear the early Christians we’re vegetarians. Ecc. 3 says man and animal are both alike. It is wrong to kill any sentient being, what kind of God would want that? It gross and pointless. What do you think?
It appears that most early Christians were omnivores. Some Jews/Jewish Christians may have been vegetarians, to avoid the problem of eating animals that had been sacrificed to pagan deities. But the Bible itself has no problem with killing and eating animals. It actually requires it!
The Nazarenes: “they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat; in their eyes it was unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claimed that these books are forgeries and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers.” Epiphanius Panarion 18.1.4
“As their so-called Gospel says, “I came to abolish sacrifices, and if you cease not from sacrificing, wrath will not cease from you” Epiphanius Panarion 30.16.5
“that He has not ordained that God should be honoured with sacrifices of bulls or the slaughter of unreasoning beasts, or by blood” in Eusbius, Proof of Gospels, ch.3
“John never ate meat.” (Hegesipp according to Eusebius, Ecc. 3 2:3)
“James the Just never ate meat” Eusebius Ecc. 23:142
“Be on guard, so that your hearts do not become heavy with the eating of flesh and with the intoxication of wine and with the anxiety of the world” Luke 21:34, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe — Syriac-Aramaic-Gospel
‘It is mercy that I want, not animal sacrifices.’” Matthew: 9:13
“The unnatural eating of the Flesh of Animals is as polluting as the Heathen Worship of Devils, with its Sacrifices and its impure Feasts, man becomes a fellow eater with Devils.” ClementineHomilies
Matthew partook […] without flesh.”Clement ofAlexandria, Instructor, 2:1
ThenIcameacrossaremarkablebookcalledTheLostReligionofJesus:SimpleLivingandNonviolenceinEarlyChristianitybyKeithAkers,whichpositsashockingthesis–thatthecentraleventoftheChristianfaith,theCrucifixion,waspredicateduponChrist’swillingnesstofightforanimalrights,itwaslikethis:
whenigotomeccaandpreachagainstanimalsacrificetheywouldkillme.
GoVegan
I wonder if a minor disruption in the temple on its own would have justified his arrest. Taking the Gospel of Matthew for example we have Jesus’ overturning of the tables of the money-changers in Matthew 21. But in Matthew 23 we have his “woes” to the scribes and pharisees. I wonder if it was the aggressive rhetoric he used against them that sealed his fate.
(forgive my attempt at concision in trying to ask about complex subjects–I’m writing under the assumption that you can unpack the background better than I and then be able to understand my question–the second part is where I often err)
What do you think of Crossan’s description of the “cleansing of the Temple” to be a parabolic action as prediction of what God was about to do in response to worship-as-replacement/cover-for-justice? That Jesus was speaking out against people sinning without care and creating injustice, then coming into the temple and conducting sacrifice to become right with God and not worrying about justice at all?
I’m asking because I think there might not be too much daylight between Sanders and Crossan on this.
AS with many of Crossan’s reconstructions, I think it is brilliant, but skewed too much to his own agenda (one that I agree with) rather than to the texts in their own historical context.
The cleansing of the Temple is a pericope that comes right after the triumphal entry into Jerusalem. There is a thematic parallel to these events in the OT.
A miracle staff – a miracle ‘Stauros’ – was given to Moses by Yahweh in Midian. This staff – this cross – was supposed to save and liberate the Israelites out of Egypt, and to convince them that God was with Moses. Just as Jesus sent two disciples in advance, so Yahweh sent Moses and Aaron in advance to Egypt. Moses was riding on a donkey (Exodus 4:20).
Exodus 4:30-31: “Moses performed the signs before the people, and they believed. And when they heard that the Lord was concerned about them and had seen their misery, they bowed down and worshiped”.
But the joy and cheer of the Israelites soon turned to sorrow and anger, when it turned out that their living conditions were deteriorating. This reluctance of the Israelites is actually a theme through the Pentateuch.
Exodus 11:4-6 “If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost — also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!”
And as a consequence, God did not allow any of the adult Israelites who left Egypt to come to the Promised Land. Only the children. Which explains these rather strange words from Jesus, which seem to have no obvious connection to the cleansing of the Temple:
‘Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise for yourself’?” – Matt 21:16
The temple cleansing is the beginning of the crucifixion story that reached a climax in Exodus chapters 17, 18 and 19.
When Joshua (Jesus) fought with Amalek, Moses held the rod over his head. When Moses lifted up his hands, Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hands, Amalek prevailed. Amalek, in the rabbinic tradition identified as Esau, is here given the role of Judas Iscariot. This fight, back and forth, between Joshua and Amalek is hinted at in the Gospel of John:
John 18:4ff “Who is it you want?” 5 “Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied.
“I am he,” Jesus said. 6 When Jesus said, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. 7 Again he asked them, “Who is it you want?”
“Jesus of Nazareth,” they said.
Jethro as Pontius Pilate!
Jethro, an idol worshiper, became the first man(in the Book of Exodus) to praise Yahweh when he heard what the Lord had done in Egypt. While the Israelites were constantly grieving and complaining, the foreigner praised the Lord. «Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods.» «Are you the king of the Jews?” “You have said so,” Jesus replied.»
Just as the Jews surrendered Joseph in the hands of the Midianites, now the Jews surrendered Yahweh in the hands of the Midianite Jethro.
PS. everything Philo says about Pilate can be seen as allegories about Jethro.
Jethro gave Moses and the Israelites a new law when he met them – the law of captains over a thousand etc.
This law was a bit problematic to accept for the Jews. Was it Jethro himself who invented this law, or was the law given by the Lord through Jethro? In other words: Was the law given by Jethro himself, or had others told him about it?
John 18:33-34 “Are you the king of the Jews?”
34 “Is that your own idea,” Jesus asked, “or did others talk to you about me?”
John 18:35 “Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied.
Jethro was not a Jew, but some traditions say he became a proselyte. Just as some traditions say that Pilate became a Christian.
John 18:38 Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”
«But NOW my kingdom…» The use of the adverb “NOW” in this text has no other meaning than to refer to the statement from Jethro.
Exodus 18:11 «Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods,»
John 18:37 I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
Or as Yahweh said about himself:
Numbers 14:18 lxx «The Lord [is] long-suffering and merciful, and true, removing transgressions and iniquities and sins»
Exodus 34:6 lxx «The Lord God, pitiful and merciful, longsuffering and very compassionate, and true,»
Do you think there is any relation between the disturbance in the temple to Jesus’ subsequent arrest and execution?
Even with troops on grounds, it seems plausible Jesus could have caused a disturbance and not get arrested. If the Temple was so large and there were a lot of people in the city for the festival, could he not have slipped into the crowd? Especially if the disturbance was brief and, as you point out, not on such a grand scale. If they wanted to track Jesus down, could this have been Judas’ betrayal?
What if Jesus was actually arrested on the spot, yet his disciples later had visions of him and thought him to be raised from the dead? It wouldn’t be surprising if, as stories were told over the years, something other than “he got himself arrested for making a scene” became the reason for his crucifixion.
All of this is speculative I realize. I’m just thinking that, if the temple incident was likely historical and something he could have been arrested for, then maybe that’s the reason he was arrested.
I think ultimately it *was* the reason he was arrested. You can probably find my discussions about it on the blog if you look for “cleansing” or “arrest.” It’s the thesis I lay out in all my books about the historical Jesus.
The Nazarenes: “they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat; in their eyes it was unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claimed that these books are forgeries and that none of these customs were instituted by the fathers.” Epiphanius Panarion 18.1.4
“As their so-called Gospel says, “I came to abolish sacrifices, and if you cease not from sacrificing, wrath will not cease from you” Epiphanius Panarion 30.16.5
“that He has not ordained that God should be honoured with sacrifices of bulls or the slaughter of unreasoning beasts, or by blood” in Eusbius, Proof of Gospels, ch.3
“John never ate meat.” (Hegesipp according to Eusebius, Ecc. 3 2:3)
“James the Just never ate meat” Eusebius Ecc. 23:142
“Be on guard, so that your hearts do not become heavy with the eating of flesh and with the intoxication of wine and with the anxiety of the world” Luke 21:34, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe — Syriac-Aramaic-Gospel
‘It is mercy that I want, not animal sacrifices.’” Matthew: 9:13
“The unnatural eating of the Flesh of Animals is as polluting as the Heathen Worship of Devils, with its Sacrifices and its impure Feasts, man becomes a fellow eater with Devils.” ClementineHomilies
Matthew partook […] without flesh.”Clement ofAlexandria, Instructor, 2:1
ThenIcameacrossaremarkablebookcalledTheLostReligionofJesus:SimpleLivingandNonviolenceinEarlyChristianitybyKeithAkers,whichpositsashockingthesis–thatthecentraleventoftheChristianfaith,theCrucifixion,waspredicateduponChrist’swillingnesstofightforanimalrights,itwaslikethis:
whenigotomeccaandpreachagainstanimalsacrificetheywouldkillme.
Professor Ehrman, thanks for the special membership during corona virus outbreak. I had a sensory deprivation facility in Fresno, Cali for 11 years…had to shut down this year due to the PLAGUE. “and so it goes…” I started when I was 20, and now I am 33…its like bring the Dead Sea to our community! Float Fresno. Anyways, as a historian, what year would you say that Jesus (Christ) was crucified? Gregorian Calendar system, and also in the Hebrew Calendar system. Please give me your personal opinion, if possible, not the accepted date in the Modern Bible. Also, in your opinion, was Christ crucified on the 15th of Nissan or the 14th of Nissan? I believe it was the 15th of Nissan at 3pm, rose on the 18th just before dawn. בשפרפרא. Thats 63 hours in the heart of the earth. Day 5 of Creation יום חמישי, a Thursday. אדם = 18 Adam. חוה = 19 Eve. יהוה = 26 Father. Equals 63. Angel (Messenger) of the LORD מלאכ יהוה = 63. Father in Heaven = 63 = אבא בשמים…or סבא if you count like a Modern Jew its also 63. I prefer the name Hebrew myself.
Notion, that temple money were required because of depictions of pagan gods or ceasars, present on “regular” money, is probably incorrect. Explanation I found:
“Although depicting clear pagan images (the head of Herakles-melkart on the obverse side, and an eagle, the attribute of Zeus, on the reverse side) this was the only type of coin accepted by the priests of the temple in Jerusalem as tax or tribute. The reason is most likely because the coin had a reputation for a constant high silver content. This has been confirmed by modern tests, and indeed the Tyrian shekel always kept a level of nearly 95% silver.”
I think one should inquire what temple Jesus cleansed.
There was only one for him, the one in Jerusalem.
1. Wasn’t Jesus fulfilling the prophecy in Zechariah 14:21 by doing this?
2. Some have mentioned this prophecy of Jesus destroying the temple was added after its actual destruction. What are your reasons for thinking Jesus historically said it?
1. That’s what the Gospels have in mind; 2. Since the prediction is multiply attested in so many sources, and coincides with wat other apocaylptic preachers at the time were saying, it looks like it’s prabably authentic.
Do we know the views of Jesus/Early Church concerning Israel becoming a state again (through rebellion or violence).
– Was it something they wanted?
– Did they think God will reinstate Israel, so military rebellion was not needed? Just patience?
Jews who expected a messiah typically thought that would happen and wanted it), and thought, typically, that it would come either from miliary action or as a direct miracle of God. But most followers of Jesus after the first decade or so were not focused on the national hopes of Israel, but on the coming kingdom for all people.
While Jesus and/or the Evangelists certainly had Zechariah 14 in mind when it comes to the Cleansing of the Temple, Charles F. Smith says in his 1960 articles “No Time For Figs:”
“ …the symbolism of the cleansing is directed toward freeing the place where the gentiles were allowed for worship [as per Zechariah 14:16].” If the point of the allusion to Zechariah is that the temple is being purified in preparation for the eschaton in which the nations come to worship, wouldn’t it be contradictory to then predict the complete destruction of the temple in that same eschaton?
Essentially, it seems there’s tension between the apocalypticism of Jesus and the apocalypticism of the scriptures used to narrate Jesus!
The “Analysis” section in the Wikipedia entry, “Cleansing of the Temple,” was lacking, for instance, the fact that the temple complex was as large as 25 American football fields, so I added to that section this sort aspect casting doubt on the story as presented in the Gospels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple#Analysis
“so I added to that section this aspect casting doubt on the story as presented in the Gospels” was what I meant to say.
My first attempt mentioned Bart and included a link to this blog entry, but a Wikipedia “cop” took my attempt down citing that blogs aren’t acceptable as sources. I unhappily excised ref to Bart and the blog post and reposted and this was accepted.
Does the “cleansing of the temple” seem to be a reaction to 2nd Temple ritual that had reformed/changed many of the 1st Temple practices? Could Jesus be demonstrating a displeasure with the reforms of King Josiah years before?
Did Paul’s three year visit to Arabia include the posterity of those folks that the Deuteronomists has exiled during the temple reforms.
He’s quite openly upset with the sale of sacrificial animals and the currency exchange necessary for that ot happen (since travellers needed to buy animals but could not use ROMAN currency to do it, since an image of the emperor-God was on it). So he was upset about the current situatoin, not idolatry from centuries earlier. But it is a changed practice, since it presupposes a Judaism spread around far away from Jerusalem, with Jews needing to travel to sacdrifice. As to Paul, we are completely unenlightened; BUT it is usually thought that he is referring to a place/places in the Nabatean kingdom (not the sands of Saudi Arabia!)
Could it be that Jesus was calling back the words of Jerimiah to condemn the reforms that King Josiah had made in the Temple rites/accoutrements that led to a more legalistic focus rather than a sincere worship? Is it not true that there were Temple rituals throughout Judah even though Josiah wanted to center them in Jerusalem?
He’s certainly quoting Jeremiah 7, but my sense is that Jeremiah is writing after oseiah’s reform that was meant to *cleanse* the temple of impurities, no? (Josiah got rid of all the idols and non-YHWH materials; his successor is the one Jeremiah is ranting against. I think?)