Steven Carr

It wasn't Hollywood. It was British TV.

The programme was faithful to the Bible. Millions of people watched it and none ever questioned how this crowd listened to the teachings of Jesus when there would have been rioting and looting if tables loaded with money had been knocked over.

That is how people read the Bible. It is a Holy book and the brain is to be switched off when reading it.

Steven Carr

So how could 'John' move it in time, if it was what actually led to his Word made Flesh being crucified?

That is duplicity on a grand scale.

It would be a bit like a historian moving the invasion of Poland to before World War One and claiming that something else was the cause of Britain declaring war on Germany.

Would we ever trust such a person to ever tell us the truth about anything?

Solo

:notworthy:

Kindly assure yourself that "the Bible" says nothing about rioting and looting in the temple after Jesus overturned the tables. The movie evidently takes licence on the "den of thieves" which was a way Jesus, in a fit of righteous rage, described the regular commercial activity in the precinct.

I personally do not think there would have been large scale looting if there was a riot, since such thesis presumes that those who were so inclined frequented the temple in droves looking for rare opportunities in heavily guarded courtyards.

So let me ask you again, what is it you wish to discuss. Is it,

1) the general propensity of humans to steal in response to moral exhortation,

2) specifically religious types who have such propensity,

3) the pitiful state of the temple security,

4) Jesus encouraging looting, which he recognizes as the charge on which he is later apprehended in the Gethsemane,

5) something else ?


Really ? ..... I dare to presume you do not count yourself as one of those, do you ? :huh:

Jiri

Steven Carr

Yes, knock over tables laden with money and there will not be a general free for all to get all this money that had been sent flying.

andrewcriddle

It has been suggested that the issue was whether or not paying a dealer at the temple to select some birds and hand them over to the priest for sacrifice really fulfilled the Mosaic law.

You were (arguably) just handing over money for someone else to arrange a sacrifice on your behalf.

In order to genuinely bring a sacrifice to the temple one (arguably) ought to buy the birds outside of the temple precincts and bring them to the temple yourself.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

Would pilgrims from Rome really do that?

If people pay to light a candle in a cathedral, should they bring in candles from outside?

Solo

I remember the commies making a big deal out of the widespread looting in New York City during the Black Out in 1966, compared to the peace and quiet in Prague when the lights went out for a comparable length of time (at least three times a year). They said it was the capitalist system that made some people behave like animals. I am not saying they were right; I am just pointing out cultural differences.

Jiri

DCHindley

Hi Andrew,

With all due respect to whoever has suggested this kind of arrangement, it reads quite a bit into the account. Is this supported in any way by Mishna, etc? It sounds a little bit like "explaining away" the problem by hypothesizing circumstances.

DCH

DCHindley

rlogan,

The difference in value between the exchanged currency and the received official currency is not necessarily all profit. The point of the practice was that the state would have to assay, melt and re-strike the exchanged currency to convert it to officially sanctioned currency. Most sovereign governments (city states, for example) impose restrictions on using non-sanctioned currency on the basis that use of unfamiliar coins will open up occasion for unfair exchanges.

The Roman empire allowed the use of various currencies for everyday exchanges, but specified certain currency for state transactions. Even local markets overseen by the local government may have enforced the use of certain coins or set exchange rates. However, I am pretty certain that nowhere in the Roman empire would a government body accept the use of Persian darics, or tokens that substituted for official currency in areas that lacked a local mint (the use of such unofficial coins were popular in the western US back in the 19th century, but they weren't legal tender for taxation or business with the goverment).

The case of the Temple Shekel is interesting. It had by far the highest percentage of silver than any other coin in circulation, but it was "official" only in the Temple. Until the war of 66-70, it bore the images of a coin minted in Tyre, even though that mint had been closed by the Roman government around 19 BCE. It wasn't operated by Tyre, even unofficially, as it was clearly in the hands of the rebels during the revolt of 66-70 CE, when they minted new coins (now without the pagan images) at the same purity rate. What apparently happened, was Herod wrung from the Romans permission to mint silver money, but only for use in the temple, and under the name of the now-closed mint in Tyre, so it didn't give the impression that Herod was anything other than a client king. Officially, Herod only issued copper/bronze coins as a symbol of his submission to Rome.

So yes, it would be necessary to convert other coins to temple approved coins. Yes, they likely applied a discount to the amount of approved coins issued in exchange. No it wasn't all profit, as the "Tyrian" mint under temple control still had to assay, remelt and strike new coins for use on a continual basis (I'm sure lots of folks took home any unused coins as souvinirs or for future visits). Since the special Tyrian coins used were higher grade than Roman approved currency, there was likely a fairly steep discount. Was this used for the head tax paid to the temple? Why would the official ask Simon for the "two-drachma" tax?

Well, my wife is dragging me away to shop at the mall (sigh). I think the thread should concentrate on the use of money in the temple and for the temple tax.

DCH

Steven Carr

You mean people just robbed of their money by extortionate rates would not start grabbing money when somebody set tables loaded with money flying?

I guess they were a bit more phlegmatic than Jesus who would take a whip to people.


Even the makers of the film had the sense to realise that people would start grabbing money, even if they were then forced by the Gospel plot line to have everybody then stop and listen to Jesus.