I’m sure Dr. Ehrman is correct in saying the ruckus Jesus caused in the Temple must have been a small-scale event.
Even so, I think it may have been crucially important.
I’ll assume Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple – making a “prediction,” not a threat, and saying it would happen after an angry God had “left” the Temple.
The Temple priests had to hear from the guards what the guards had heard from the irate moneychangers. By the time the story reached them, it had Jesus threatening to destroy the Temple – the abode of God!
The priests wanted to have him killed, for blasphemy. They couldn’t do that. So they told Pilate he thought he was the Messiah. “Messiah” had many possible meanings; I’m guessing they only made an issue of it when they needed an excuse to ask Pilate to execute someone.
And I’ll assume “Judas” was a real figure in the story. I think the most likely explanation of his turning against Jesus is that he was horrified by Jesus’s irreverent behavior in the Temple. It’s possible all the disciples were shocked!
Wilusa said
I’m sure Dr. Ehrman is correct in saying the ruckus Jesus caused in the Temple must have been a small-scale event.Even so, I think it may have been crucially important.
I’ll assume Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple – making a “prediction,” not a threat, and saying it would happen after an angry God had “left” the Temple.
The Temple priests had to hear from the guards what the guards had heard from the irate moneychangers. By the time the story reached them, it had Jesus threatening to destroy the Temple – the abode of God!
The priests wanted to have him killed, for blasphemy. They couldn’t do that. So they told Pilate he thought he was the Messiah. “Messiah” had many possible meanings; I’m guessing they only made an issue of it when they needed an excuse to ask Pilate to execute someone.
And I’ll assume “Judas” was a real figure in the story. I think the most likely explanation of his turning against Jesus is that he was horrified by Jesus’s irreverent behavior in the Temple. It’s possible all the disciples were shocked!
It is a good idea to read Josephus Book XX, chap 5, paragraph 3.
“Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should then be made by them; so he ordered that one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts of innovation, if perchance any such should begin; and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals.” Next is described tumults that occurred as the result of the thoughtless behavior of one single Roman soldier – “a great number were pressed to death in those narrow passages; nor indeed was the number fewer than twenty thousand that perished in this tumult”. This estimate is most likely too high, but there was no doubt a disaster.
This explains it all. A single person with a small following walking around in the temple area during the crowded period of a major festival, kicking down merchant’s tables and claiming that God will rebuild the temple, would have been considered very dangerous.
I think that the story of “the cleansing of the Temple” is just another allegory, or midrash, from the prophetic writings of the Tanakh. Cleansing of the Temple was simply something a messiah had to do, according to the Scriptures.
This event is an allegory related to a vision the prophet Ezekiel had of the Lord cleansing the Temple in Ezekiel: 8:1-11:25
Not only that, Jesus gives quotes from the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah: “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer, ‘but you make it a den of robbers.”
And Zechariah concludes his prophecies in this way. Zechariah 14:21 “And on that day there will no longer be traders in the Temple of the LORD of Heaven’s Armies.”
Another important point is the reason the money changers were there.
At passover tens of thousands of Jews would return to Jerusalem to celebrate the feast which would require a lamb for each family. The blessed lambs could be purchased at the Temple so that you would not have to travel with one but it was sacrilege to purchase the lamb with Roman or foreign coinage. Therefore the money changes provided an important service in allowing the visitors to purchase their lamb with Jewish money.
In the Gospels, Jesus is kicking out corrupt money makers from the holy place. Whereas in fact he’s just being a d***. 
I agree that this was a over played by the Gospel writers to try and show that Jesus despised money changing hands in the Temple. But as you said, that custom was going on for centuries and Christians today think its its like it was going on right inside the church but when you look at how big Herod’s Temple was, it was huge and so that ritual was no where near the holy of holies which was a small area at the back of the Temple where only the Chief Priest had access to. Go and have a look at a sketch of how it must have looked like to get the picture right. Where would they have kept all those thousands of lambs and doves etc?
The most significant point for me about this story though was that Jesus and his family must have been coming to Jerusalem for the passover for years and years seeing exactly the same thing and they said nothing? Also to me as an animal lover who hates the animal sacrifice narrative that even today is still carried on by Muslims who slaughter tens of millions of animals annually for the same reason, was that Jesus said NOTHING about that cruel practice and yet he was supposed to have been the sacrificial new lamb of God that was to end all this sacrifice for ever? Pity he never said so at the time he upset the tables?
I never claim any expertise. But as I understand it – and I think this is what Dr. Ehrman would say – ordinary people from as far away as Galilee didn’t make the “pilgrimage” to Jerusalem for Passover frequently. Jesus and his disciples may have been seeing the Temple for the first time in their lives (assuming the story about his childhood visit is unhistorical).
Something I wonder about… Suppose the word “Iscariot” actually is derived from “Kerioth,” and Judas came from the place by that name that was near Hebron. (We’re not sure it existed in this time period; I’m just making a working assumption.) That’s in Judea; and even though it’s not near Jerusalem, it would probably have been easier for people from that area to visit the Temple than for Galileans. So Judas might have been the only disciple who was familiar with the Temple, not “shocked” by anything he saw going on there. As a consequence, he might have been more appalled than anyone else by Jesus’s behavior!
How might a Judean have come to be a disciple of the Galilean Jesus? He might first have been a disciple of John the Baptist, and learned from the “grapevine” among John’s followers that another possible “Messiah” – baptized by John (who was by then dead or imprisoned) – was preaching in Galilee.
About the animal sacrifice… I also loathe it, of course! But those who want to believe Jesus was divine can argue that he knew the people of that era wouldn’t accept something as drastic as a condemnation of animal sacrifice, and it would prevent their heeding worthwhile teachings of his that they might accept. (The same argument can be used to excuse his not condemning slavery.)
Wilusa said
I never claim any expertise. But as I understand it – and I think this is what Dr. Ehrman would say – ordinary people from as far away as Galilee didn’t make the “pilgrimage” to Jerusalem for Passover frequently. Jesus and his disciples may have been seeing the Temple for the first time in their lives (assuming the story about his childhood visit is unhistorical).
How do make that assessment? I thought it was the custom, if not a requirement, for all Jews in Israel to attend Passover in Jerusalem.
Wilusa
The ruckus Jesus caused in the Temple must have been a small-scale event. Even so, I think it may have been crucially important.
I’ll assume Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple – making a “prediction,” not a threat, and saying it would happen after an angry God had “left” the Temple.
The Temple priests had to hear from the guards what the guards had heard from the irate moneychangers. By the time the story reached them, it had Jesus threatening to destroy the Temple – the abode of God.
Steefen
According to Matthew 21: 12-16, Jesus overturned the tables, said his peace, healed some people and left. There is no threat to destroy the Temple. Jesus did not do that because he just finished calling the Temple is Father’s House of Prayer.
Wilusa
I think the most likely explanation of Judas’ turning against Jesus is that he was horrified by Jesus’s irreverent behavior in the Temple. It’s possible all the disciples were shocked.
Steefen
Jesus showed reverence for the Temple by declaring it was not supposed to be a marketplace.
The event likely did not happen. Basically, in this historical fiction, Jesus is upset with the design of the Temple in a way that an outer court was designated a place where people can gather necessary animals to bring into the inner courts for sacrifice.
What, Jesus had a problem with foreign exchange? Many people came from outside of Judea and Israel. Even local people had to exchange currency. ( See: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** )
Wilusa said
Something I wonder about… Suppose the word “Iscariot” actually is derived from “Kerioth,” and Judas came from the place by that name that was near Hebron. (We’re not sure it existed in this time period; I’m just making a working assumption.) That’s in Judea; and even though it’s not near Jerusalem, it would probably have been easier for people from that area to visit the Temple than for Galileans. So Judas might have been the only disciple who was familiar with the Temple, not “shocked” by anything he saw going on there. As a consequence, he might have been more appalled than anyone else by Jesus’s behavior!
How might a Judean have come to be a disciple of the Galilean Jesus? He might first have been a disciple of John the Baptist, and learned from the “grapevine” among John’s followers that another possible “Messiah” – baptized by John (who was by then dead or imprisoned) – was preaching in Galilee.
If you go to the Bible where it speaks of which disciples were originally disciples of John the Baptist, Judas was not named.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)