Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:07:45.830Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Symbolic Money-changers in the Temple?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

George Wesley Buchanan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

J. Neusner and E. P. Sanders have directed scholarly attention to Mark 11. 15–19 and its parallels. Sanders used this pericope to demonstrate his belief that this was the most trustworthy report of any of Jesus' teachings and actions, and Neusner presumed its historical validity while conjecturing that on this occasion Jesus repudiated Jewish temple sacrifice and intended to substitute for the tables in the temple the Eucharist table as a means of obtaining atonement. These are bold claims and prompt a further analysis of the relevant passage:

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , April 1991 , pp. 280 - 290
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 61–76Google Scholar, and Neusner, J., ‘Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah's Explanation’, NTS 35 (1989) 287–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 The word is έδίδασκεν, interpreted here as an incipient imperfect, but that interpretation is not essential to any of the arguments used in this article.

3 See further Buchanan, G. W., Typology and the Gospel (Lanham, New York, London, University Press of America, c. 1987) 78–9.Google Scholar

4 A similar halachic passage is Berakoth 10. 5: ‘He may not enter into the temple mount with his staff, sandal, his wallet, or with the dust upon his feet, nor may he make of it a short by-path; still less may he spit there.’

5 So also Hengel, M., Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Philadelphia, 1971) 16–17.Google Scholar

6 Trocmé, E., ‘L'expulsion des marchands du Temple’, NTS 15 (1968) 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Trocmé, E., ‘Jésus-Christ et le Temple: éloge d'un naif’, Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 44 (1964) 245–51Google Scholar; Carmichael, J., ‘Jésus-Christ et le Temple’, Nouvelle Revue Française 12 (1964) 276–95.Google Scholar

8 Sabbe, M., ‘Tempelreinigung en Tempellogion’, Collationes Brugenses et Gandavenses 2 (1956) 289–99.Google Scholar

9 Medner, S., ‘Die Tempelreinigung’, ZNTW 47 (1956) 93–112Google Scholar. Neusner, however, has refuted this.

10 Buse, I., ‘The Cleansing of the Temple in the Synoptics and in John’, ET 70 (1958) 22–4.Google Scholar

11 Hamilton, N. Q., ‘Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank’, JBL 83 (1964) 365–72.Google Scholar

12 Neusner, , ‘Money-Changers’, 289.Google Scholar

13 Evans, C. A., ‘Jesus' Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction’, CBQ 51 (1989) 238.Google Scholar

14 Neusner, , ‘Money-Changers’, 290Google Scholar. Evidently the money-changers had tables (τραπέζας) and chairs, but Jesus regularly banqueted with his disciples and others on the floor in a reclining position (Matt 9. 10–13; Mark 2. 15–17; Luke 5. 29–31). This is the report of the Last Supper as well (άνέκειτο, Matt 26. 20; άνακείμενων, Mark 14.18; άνέπεσεν, Luke 22.14; άνακείμενος, John 13. 23). It is from a reclining position that it was possible for the other disciple whom Jesus loved to be at his bosom, the place of highest honour (John 13. 23). The exchange of ‘table for table’ is homiletically attractive but realistically not as nearly perfect as it would be if the transfer had been made in the Western world in the twentieth century.

15 Passages Evans used as examples are from Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Lamentations, Zephaniah, Zechariah, Malachi, Jubilees, Testament of Levi, 1 Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, and the Testament of Moses. Evans, , ‘Action’, 248–56.Google Scholar

16 Used as an illustration also in Buchanan, G. W., ‘The Use of Rabbinic Literature for New Testament Research’, Biblical Theology Bulletin 7 (1977) 119–20.Google Scholar

17 Rabbis were not in complete agreement on this. Sifre Deuteronomy (26:3; # 299) said the proselyte was prohibited from offering first fruits. Bikurim 1:4 said the proselyte would be allowed to bring his gift, but he could not make his declaration. Maimonides said he could do both (Code 7.6, 4.3).

18 See further Buchanan, G. W., ‘Mark 11:15–19: Brigands in the Temple’, HUCA 30 (1959) 169–77Google Scholar; ‘An Additional Note to “Mark 11:15–19: Brigands in the Temple”’, HUCA 31 (1960) 103–5.Google Scholar

19 Sanders, , Jesus, 5.Google Scholar

20 Sanders, , Jesus, 17.Google Scholar

21 Sanders, , Jesus, 61.Google Scholar

22 Sanders, , Jesus, 61.Google Scholar

23 Sanders, , Jesus, 10.Google Scholar Sanders may have been drawn to this beginning point by Dahl, N. A., ‘The Problem of the Historical Jesus’, Kerygma and History, tr. and ed. Braaten, C. E. and Harrisville, R. A. (New York: Abingdon, c. 1962) 138–71Google Scholar. Dahl correctly said, ‘There is a point in the life of Jesus which is unconditionally established. That is his death’ (157). Although the story of the cleansing is reported close in time and geography to the death of Jesus, it is far less secure from the standpoint of literature and history.

24 For an examination of chreias and parables as a basis from which to begin historical Jesus research see Buchanan, G. W., Jesus: The King and his Kingdom (Macon: Mercer University, 1984) 43–82.Google Scholar