DCHindley

I went to the source and looked it up in Mishna, Shekalim 1.3, and yes, "the tables" are set up in the temple on the 25th of Adar. They were set up "in the provinces" on the 15th. There was also a 'surcharge' for each Shekel paid (1/6 or 1/12 of a denarius) "as compensation to the temple's Skekels-collectors to reimburse them for any loss incurred in changing the shekels or half shekels into or out of other money." (Danby, The Mishna, page 153, note 1 to Shekalim 1:6). The money was handed over to the treasurers of the temple in 1 Nisan (the next month after Adar).

It sounds to me like the folks making these exchanges were lay Israelites, who are being so generous in the exchanges that there is a small surchange to offset the loss. It does not appear that they are even paid for what they did. I am unable to find any ill-will expressed about over-zealous shekel collectors. Hard and fast rules were in place as to who they could accept the tax from.

Where is the wholesale graft and corruption?

DCH

152 SHEKALIM ('THE SHEKEL DUES')

1.1. On the first day of Adar they give warning of the Shekel dues(2) and against [the sowing of] Diverse Kinds. On the 15th thereof they read the Megillah in walled cities and repair the paths and roads and pools of water and perform all public needs and mark the graves; and they also go forth [to give warning] against Diverse Kinds. …

3. On the 15th thereof the tables [of the money-changers] were set up in the provinces; and on the 25th thereof they were set up in the Temple. After they were set up in the Temple they began to exact pledges.(8) From whom did they exact pledges? From levites, Israelites, proselytes, and freed slaves, but not from women, slaves, or minors. If the father had begun to pay the Shekel on behalf of [his son that was] a minor, he may never again cease to pay it. They did not exact pledges from the priests, in the interests of peace.

4. R. Judah said: Ben Bukri testified at Jabneh that if a priest paid the Shekel he committed no sin. Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai answered: Not so! but, rather, if a priest did not pay the Shekel he committed sin; but the priests used to expound this scripture to their advantage, And every meal offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall not be eaten :10 since the Omer and the Two Loaves and the Shewbread are ours, how can they be eaten?

5. Although they have said, 'They do not exact pledges from women, slaves, or minors', if they have paid the Shekel it is accepted of them; but if a gentile or a Samaritan paid the Shekel it is not accepted of them. Nor do they accept of them the Bird-offerings of a man or woman that has a flux or of a woman after childbirth, or Sin-offerings or Guilt-offerings; but they may accept of them vow-offerings or freewill-offerings. This is the general rule: What is vowed or freely offered is accepted of them, but what is not vowed or freely offered is not accepted of them; and so is it expressly enjoined by Ezra, for it is written, Ye have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God.

152n2) i.e. the half-shekel (see Ex. 3O13fl.) due to the Temple from every Israelite 'twenty years old and upward' before the ist of Nisan each year; on and after the ist of Nisan the public offerings may be brought only from the newly paid shekel dues.
152n8) From such as had not paid.

153

6. And these are they that are liable to surcharge(1) levites and Israelites and proselytes and freed slaves; but not priests, women, slaves, or minors. If a man paid the Shekel on behalf of a priest or a woman or a slave or a minor, he is exempt. If he paid for himself and for his fellow he is liable to but a single surcharge. R. Meir says: A double surcharge. If a man gave a sela ( i.e., 2 shekels) and took back a shekel he is liable to a double surcharge.

7. If a man paid the Shekel on behalf of a poor man or on behalf of his fellow or on behalf of a fellow-townsman, he is exempt; but if he had lent it to them he is liable. If brothers that were jointholders are liable to surcharge they are exempt from Tithe of Cattle; and if they are liable to Tithe of Cattle they are exempt from surcharge. And how much is the surcharge? A silver maah (1/6 of a Denarius). So R. Meir. But the Sages say: Half a maah (1/12 of a Denarius).

2.1. Shekels may be changed into darics because of [lightening] a journey's load. Like as there were Shofar-chests(10) in the Temple so were there Shofar-chests in the provinces. If the people of a town sent their Shekels [to the Temple] and they were stolen or lost, if Terumah had already been taken [the messengers] swear an oath before the treasurers; otherwise they swear an oath before the people of the town, and the people of the town must pay the Shekel dues anew; if the dues [that were lost] were found again or if the thieves restored them, these, too, are taken as Shekel dues and they do not count in fulfilment of their obligation for the coming year.

2. If a man gave his Shekel to his fellow to pay on his behalf and he paid it on his own behalf, if Terumah had already been taken, he has committed Sacrilege. If a man paid his Shekel from money that belonged to the Temple, if Terumah had already been taken and a sacrifice offered, he has committed Sacrilege. If it was from Second Tithe money or the price of Seventh Year produce, he must [still] consume [produce of] the like value.

3. If a man brought together coins and said, 'Lo, these are for my Shekel,' the School of Shammai say: The surplus falls also to the Temple fund. And the School of Hillel say: The surplus is free for common use. [But if he said,] 'These are for my Sin-offering', they agree that the surplus falls to the Temple fund; [but if he said,] 'I will offer my Sin-offering from them', they agree that the surplus is free for common use.

153n1) Compensation to the Temple's Shekel-collectors to reimburse them for any loss incurred in changing the shekels or half-shekels into or out of other money.
153n9) A Persian gold coin worth about sixteen shekels.
153n10) To receive the Shekel dues. 'Shofar' possibly refers to the tapering shape of these money-chests.

Duvduv

The moneychangers were involved in currency exchange for Jews comingto the temple from various countries. I suppose there could have been cheating going on about which the gospel writers wanted to protest. However doesn't Acts tell us that Paul was at the temple and there is no mention of this problem??!

outhouse

acts isnt all that trustworthy, and paul about not much better.


jesus may not have liked the fact they could charge you what ever they felt like for the exchange, it wasnt free.

He may have been ticked that he had to pay to worship.

he may not have liked the roman coins

he may not have liked the temple tax


this was like going to the fair, with a bunch of dirty crooked carnies and 10 dollar hot dogs with all the rigged games. Pay for parking, pay for entrance, pay for restrooms, ect ect ect

he could have been ticked off at alot.





problem is this has some OT refferences and may not be historical.

aa5874

Enough of your AD HOC stories!!!

Please Identify your sources.

It seems like you have a "million" ad hoc stories to tell.

Solo

I read the temple cleansing as an allegory, recalling Paul's saying about one's body being a temple that belongs to God. (1 Cr 6:19), and the previous sayings about things 'coming from inside that corrupt a man' (7:21-22). Mark created the scene in deliberately confuting 'temple' and the mystical 'body', something that will later surface at the trial in the false accusation against Jesus plotting to destroy the temple (14:58-59). John of course outed the hidden parallel in 2:19-21.

Best,
Jiri

Solo

....and how about you; are you trustworthy ? I have asked you to supply some reference to your assertion that in overturning the tables Jesus was attacking the Romans treasury. Where does Josephus describe Pilate using Temple money to build an aqueduct ? Puhleeeze, help me find it !


...or, in the alternative, you are just full of the outhouse thing. :huh:

Best,
Jiri