zaitzeff

This leads us to another question. Suppose that Jesus was in fact an anti-anger guy and that Mark 3:5 and Matthew 23 reflect, not the anger of Jesus, but the anger of "Mark" and "Matthew" against the Pharisees and scribes who weren't going along with their view of Jesus. What then of the "cleansing of the temple"? Is it possible that Mark made this story up?

Some believe Jesus was angry at seeing the money changers in the Passion week. And, supposedly, this anger led him to make whips of cords and drive out the animals and overturn the tables.

Mark 11:15 After Jesus and his disciples reached Jerusalem, he went into the temple and began chasing out everyone who was selling and buying. He turned over the tables of the moneychangers and the benches of those who were selling doves. 16 Jesus would not let anyone carry things through the temple.

Jesus was around 30 at the time. If changing money or selling doves was wrong, why had He done and said nothing about it in the previous 20 years?

Supposedly Jesus is a pretty pacifistic guy, as we read in Matt 5:39-42. This creates other problems, but for now, we note that Jesus's actions in cleansing the temple seem to be "resisting evil," which Mt 5:39 says not to do.

Further, is Mark 11:15 reasonable historically? Christians who read the story and believe it assume that the ordinarily meek and mild Jesus had made a whip of some rope and once he asserts his view, the money-changers and dove-sellers sheepishly and inwardly admit he is right and put up no resistance! Why? Because the idea of Jesus getting into a fist-fight with either a money-changer or the temple police is so far removed from our idea of Jesus as to be inconceivable to the modern Christian! How does the fellow who says "Don't fight back" and "Give to him who asks" get into a fist-fight with someone else over money? If that happened, then, the credibility of the guy who says, "Don't fight back" is destroyed because he is unmasked as a hypocrite.

So, not only are we to believe that Jesus cleanses the temple, but that, while and after cleansing the temple, none of the greedy money-changers or the heartless temple police either laid a hand on Jesus. None of them attempted to restrain Jesus; none of them, despite losing their money and property, got angry enough to try to hit Jesus, a Jesus who, to them, was in fact an upstart, an unrecognized "rabbi" from Galilee.

Please note that in the gospel of Mark, Jesus doesn't just knock over a few tables and disappear into the crowd. After the initial cleansing, when Jesus was present, He "would not permit anyone carry things through the temple." That is, after knocking over the tables with money and doves, Jesus remains in the temple observing. And, if and when Jesus sees money, animals or birds being brought through the temple, Jesus puts a stop to it. Hey, since there were temple police at this time, what exactly were they doing while Jesus shut down the sacrifices for a day or two? And, how did Jesus respond when the temple police came to him and say, "You are coming with us"?

Not only do we have these questions, but according to Mark, Jesus goes back to the temple the next day:

20 As the disciples walked past the fig tree the next morning [after cleansing the temple . . .
27 Jesus and his disciples returned to Jerusalem. And as he was walking through the temple [the day after cleansing the temple], the chief priests, the nation's leaders, and the teachers of the Law of Moses came over to him. 28They asked, "What right do you have to do these things? Who gave you this authority?"

Wait. Jesus cleanses the temple and for the rest of the day, heals and teaches in it without harm or threat coming to him. 16 "Jesus would not let anyone carry things through the temple."

Jesus leaves. What is the first thing that would happen? The money-changers and dove-sellers would set up their tables again. They would definitely be back the next day! Yet, Jesus returns the next day and all is peaceful as a clear morning! No angry money-changers show up, no temple police, just scribes asking Jesus a question as to where he got the right to drive out the merchandizers!!









What seems historically necessary is that either:
1) Jesus caused a riot and was arrested on the spot, leading to his execution shortly thereafter, and there was no betrayal in the middle of the night by Judas;
2) Jesus never upset the tables of the money-changers and dove-sellers.

Vorkosigan

It's all fiction. I have a long essay on my website here.

Amaleq13

I agree. :thumbs:

zaitzeff

when I wrote questioning the story of the cleansing of the temple,
I could see reasons for doubting its historicity, but I could not see a good reason for Mark to make up the story. however, now that one of the posters has an essay on this subject, that essay seems to provide motivation for Mark to make up the story:

http://users2.ev1.net/%7Eturton/GMar....html#11.15.19

Zechariah 14:21
Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a merchant in the house of the LORD Almighty. (NIV)[some manuscripts read "Canaanite" for "merchant."]

and

As Brodie puts it (p93):



..."the basic point is clear: Mark's long passion narrative, while using distinctive Christian sources, coincides significantly both in form and content with the long Temple-centered sequence at the end of the Elijah-Elisha narrative."

and

v27: it is implausible that Jesus is walking in the Temple, which two paragraphs ago he has just trashed.