Koyaanisqatsi

Late Christian propaganda contradicted by the fact that "such things" were a doctrinal necessity (see previous posts regarding the idolatry of Greek and Roman coins). To a Jewish cult member in Jesus' day, it would have been blasphemous not to have money-changers.

And let's make something very clear; no such merchants were inside the Temple. It would have been the equivalent of setting up a table on the sidewalk outside of a Church.

There was no such thing as a "Christian" cult member as we know them today back then; they were all Jewish cult members, including, of course, Jesus who allegedly came to fulfill Jewish prophecy. Jesus would have only responded as any other Jewish cult member would have responded, which is to say, he wouldn't have given one tiny shit about a necessary, beneficial, traditional function going on outside the Temple.

It reeks of anti-semitism and therefore far more likely the work of the anonymous Roman who wrote Mark.

And that's what happened inside the Temple. A Catholic cult member, for example, does not bow down to pray in the Church sacristy or outside in the vestibule or on the Church lawn so if there were, say, altar boys shooting crap against the handball court on the Church playground, they may be shooed away by the Priest, but it certainly wouldn't destroy the "holy place" for the cult members to "atone for their sin."

That is not correct. Their purpose was as holy as anything going on inside the Temple, as others have pointed out. Think of it in the same terms as a Church "yard sale."

Beyond the fact that this is a strawman, why not? I still don't see how that's any kind of a religious calamity. Cashing a cult member's check who doesn't have a bank to do so for him or her would be a wonderful service.

Yes, well, again, the "holy of holies" was not being defiled in any way. Perhaps (just perhaps) there might have been some shady loan sharking going on at one or two corrupt tables outside the Temple, but the only thing allowed inside the Temple would have been cult members praying.

Notsri

I wonder if you haven't limited the scope of the term (viz., "Temple") to include only something like the Sanctuary of the Temple precincts. In that sense your statement would be correct: money changers of course were not conducting business in the Sanctuary. But I don't think that such a narrow interpretation is required. The gospels use the word hieron, which (IIUC) can include the whole of the Temple site. It's been suggested with that fact in mind that the incident probably would've occurred in the Gentile Courtyard. Whatever the case, it does seem at least probable that money changers were found operating within the hieron, within the Temple area. Mishnah, Shekalim 1:3 (e.g.) states that every 25th of Adar money changers set up and conducted business for a period "in the Temple."

Regards,
Notsri

TheBigKahoona

I don't understand how my comments could be considered a strawman? But the problem lies in the fact that the temple's purpose was worship not providing that said service.

The temple complex was quite large and of course the Holy of Holies did not have advertisements on it. However the fact remains that exchanging money and selling doves and cattle is a violation of the temple. (John 2:13-16 NIV) From what this passage says it sounds like part of the temple had been converted into a marketplace of one kind or another. The passage also says that this was going on in "the temple courts".

Wallener

How can this be put politely: the Christian gospels are about as far from an authority on what was or wasn't proper in, on, around, or underneath the Temple as can be found. The place the moneychanging took place was called the Court of Gentiles. It is highly unlikely Jews would name a site holy in any meaningful way after Goy.

Amaleq13

You seem to continue to be missing the point that the service was necessary for worship (in the form of offering sacrifices) to be possible. Money with graven images was prohibited and it needed to be exchanged before the necessary sacrifices could be purchased.

The fact remains that this Gospel depiction is extremely misleading if not entirely false. Exchanging money with graven images was required by Law so that animals could be purchased and offered for sacrifice.

The best, IMO, apologetic attempt to salvage this aspect of the story as historical is to suggest that Jesus was opposing a surcharge added to this otherewise necessary process. There doesn't appear to be anything in the text to support this speculation but, at the least, it doesn't try to rewrite history and pretend that something integral to Temple functions was somehow a violation of the Temple.

GakuseiDon

Jesus was complaining about them turning the area into "a house of merchandise". Wouldn't charging surcharges fit that? But perhaps it was more than that - perhaps they were selling add-ons, e.g. the ancient equivalent of T-shirts (whatever that would be). "My husband took a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and all he brought back was this lousy loin cloth".

According to the Mishnah, in a similar episode of that period, the famous Rabbi Gamaliel complained about the tactics of the moneychangers, despite the necessity of the service:
http://www.jewishservice.org/learn_d...atID=9&lid=170
But I guess that if any equivalent parallel to the actions of Jesus could be found, it would quickly become evidence that the Gospel writers copied it from that source... "Rabbi figures who cleaned out moneychangers were a dime-a-dozen in those days!"

spin

Has anyone here discussed why there were moneychangers in the temple and what benefit driving them out may have been gained?


spin

Amaleq13

Yes, as I indicated in my post. But there is a difference between a possibility "fitting" with a story and the story giving clear indication supporting that explanation.

This isn't really a parallel since the Rabbi didn't oppose the presence of the moneychangers and didn't drive them out but only caused them to correct their practices to be more fair. It is reasonable to wonder if this event might have served as an inspiration for the Gospel story given a reliable dating in 1CE. IMO, Gamaliel's actions here seems more "Christ-like" than the Gospel story.

I hope TheBigKahoona notes that this story confirms what we've been trying to tell him about the necessity of moneychangers.

spin

Yup, that's it. Without the moneychangers the temple tax could not be paid. So why get upset with them when they are providing an important service? Hey, so they may make a profit on the exchange, but what's new?


spin

Wallener

Hold on. Gakusei misread the Mishnah; it isn't referring to Gamaliel, it is referring to Gamaliel's son, Shimon (R'Hillel's granson). If Gamliel puts us at 1 CE, Shimon arguably pushes that out a generation, or getting rather close to 30 CE. And Shimon is not exactly an unfamiliar name to gospel readers...

Interesting stuff.