John A. Broussard

For someone who could multiply fishes, raise the dead, walk on water---driving a regiment out of the temple would have been child's play.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, I can't speak to what "someone" else "mentioned," but I can offer the following...

Assuming that there actually were moneychangers in the Temple and assuming (therefore) that this was an accepted aspect of the period (which I don't, by the way; sounds far too much like anti-Jewish exploitation), then why would Jesus seek to drive them out?

The propaganda is that he was outraged by the practice, but why would he be? Nowhere in Jesus' alleged teachings does he ever even hint at a dissatisfaction with the way the Temple is being either maintained or run or whatever. In fact, there's no mention at all about the sanctity of the Temple, other than this one incident.

He doesn't preach on the Mount about how sacrosanct the Temple is or mention anything at all about how any kind of temple means anything at all to God, other than the human temple.

He goes to great lengths to change every single Jewish law (at the same time saying no Jewish law will be changed), but mentions nothing about the holiness of the Temple.

That's just in general, meaning that, if the trading of goods and the changing of currencies were so abhorrent to him, you'd think that he would have lead up to it in his discussions with his followers or proclaimations to his sheep.

And maybe I'm just missing pertinent passages that no doubt some thumper cult member will produce, but the point is, what is so inherently blasphemous about someone changing money on Temple grounds?

Christians ask for money all the time in their temples and there is nothing inherently sinful in providing a service to wandering "tourists" to change their money for the local currency.

The only problem that I can see is that someone might be profiting off of the changing of money. But who would object to such a practice? An alleged Jewish Messiah preaching away from the Temple (and preaching that he is the living Temple and/or that we are living Temples)?

Who, in our society, uses propaganda to stop a practice that results in profit to a small business class that, perhaps, should be controlled by...say...an occupying elite? Who would want to concoct a myth of a money-changer (as Jews were perceived and still are) who became outraged at other money-changers (i.e., at himself) and overturned all of the tables in righteous indignation; righteous indignation at a practice that wasn't remotely distasteful to any Jewish person at the time?

Why would it be? It was a necessary service, supposedly. Do you want to destroy check cashing outlets, because they make a couple of bucks on every check they cash?

This is something distasteful to someone outside of the culture looking in, which, of course, is the basis of the Christian cult contrary to the alleged people involved.

If Jesus actually were what all the Christian claims says he was, then the Temple and anything that went on in or around the Temple would be utterly irrelevant to Jesus. Jesus is the Temple.

It might only become relevant to Jesus as a Jew and even then, it's hard to imagine how. What Jew has ever stood up in his or her local synagogue and oveturned the pews when the "offering" plate was passed around? It's just not a Jewish thing to do, but it sure as shit would have been a Roman thing to do.

My .02.

Wallener

There is one indirect reference: in John, Jesus celebrates Channukah, of all things.

It doesn't necessarily argue against your point, but it is a giant WTF? action for a guy alleged to be violently anti-pharisitic.

Amaleq13

True but I don't think he did those things either.

Zeichman

Koyanisqaatsi, thanks for the long response.

My thinking is that Jesus already comes of as a non-cultic prophet like, say, Amos in many of his teachings. While an anti-temple activity would not seem directly related to anything that he taught, I'm thinking that if he viewed himself (and others viewed him) as one of these non-cultic prophets of old, then a sign-act like this would be seemingly appropriate for such a character.

Amaleq13

Appropriate for the character and credible as history are two different concepts.

TheBigKahoona

The blasphemy stems from the fact that the temple is sacrosanct and is not meant to be a place for such things.

A Christian is not the same as a Jew and a church is a very different animal from the Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple was a holy place for the jews to atone for their sin not a place for people to lend money. BTW I believe a money changer is more of a banker in the fact that he loans money. A "money changer" did not change money for tourists.

Check cashing outlets are wonderful inventions. However, changing the Temple, the one place where the Jews can atone for their sin, into a check cashing outlet, is not good from a religious perspective.

YOu are quite right, Jesus is the temple. However, the fact that the holy of holies was being defiled did not sit well with the son of God.

andrewcriddle

In this context money changers converted Greek and Roman coins into the Jewish money required for religious purposes.

Similarly the sellers of animals would provide the worshipper, in exchange for money, with a ritually suitable animal for sacrifice.

Some scholars such as Chilton argue that Jesus objected to having a group of people in the temple who would (for a fee) carry out for the worshipper things that he should have done for himself before entering the temple.

There is (late) rabbinic evidence of a dispute between those who held that a worshipper should bring a sacrifice to the temple and those who held that he should buy a sacrifice from a professional in the temple.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

To add to Andrew's comment, it is my understanding that the specific reason for this exchange was that the Greek and Roman coins held images that would be considered blasphemous if allowed inside the Temple proper.

Wallener

They did, actually. They performed foreign exchange for incoming pilgrims, which is a perfectly legitimate function since there were no travellers cheques or credit cards in those days. It was also a function fraught with considerable financial risk for the changer, since pilgrims could arrive with currency ahead of news of "regime change" (not all regimes were as stable as Rome ).