Speaker: Paula Fredriksen

Topic: Turning the Tables on the ‘Purification’ of the Temple

Overview: E.P. Sanders in Jesus and Judaism challenged the idea that Jesus was somehow objecting to the way the temple was being run when he upset the tables of the pigeon sellers and of money changers. Rather than focus on what Jesus was supposed to have said, he urged that we attend to the action that Jesus supposedly did. That action, said Sanders, was a prophetic gesture pointing ahead to the eschatological destruction (and subsequent rebuilding) of the temple. NT scholars have stuck with the “prophetic gesture” argument, while interpreting it within the old traditional framework: Jesus was prophesying the temple’s destruction because he did not like it very much. Appealing to the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of John, and Paul’s letters, Fredriksen will offer a third argument: Jesus never made such a temple tantrum gesture, nor did he ever prophesy the destruction of the temple.

The temple complex was massive, and the largest part of it was the section for the money changers and the sacrificial pigeon sellers.  Roman soldiers would have been stationed there during the High Holidays as crowd control.  Jesus would have needed an army to carry out what scripture said he did in the temple.  E.P Sanders thought the meaning was that, following scripture, a new and glorious temple in the end times would replace the current one in Jesus’ time.  Fredriksen rejects this interpretation of the tantrum and the prediction of the destruction of the temple in Mark 13 since Paul seems to know nothing about it and according to traditional dating antedates the gospels by 2 generations.  Jesus is executed between two lestes (insurrectionists, not robbers) mocked as king of the Jews, and given a punishment (crucifixion) for political threats. 

The idea of Jesus being crucified but not his close followers is problematic on the insurrectionist model, as executed followers would be the norm following Rome dispatching charismatic prophetic figures again and again.  The fact Jesus lone died suggests Pilate knew Jesus was not politically dangerous.  After Jesus’s death his followers settled in Jerusalem, apparently expecting no backlash from Pilate or the priests.  Jesus was thought in messianic terms by the crowd with the triumphal entry.  Jesus was noisily popular, which was reflective of the tradition that he had to be arrested by stealth.  Fredriksen suggests Pilate and the priests do not arrest him immediately and Jesus is left to continue preaching because Jesus had been to Jersualem teaching numerous times before as John’s chronology notes, teaching that God, not man, would enact the kingdom, and so would not be a threat to Rome.  Fredriksen proposes what made this trip to Jerusalem different is Jesus prophesied this would be the last Passover before the coming kingdom and this was confirmed by Jesus’s pharisaic resurrection predicted in Jewish tradition.  Jesus’ repudiation of the temple was not historical, but reflected post 70 CE desires to ease the effect on people of the temple’s destruction.  The triumphal entry led to the crucifixion.

Analysis

What seems to be the literary case with the temple tantrum is Jesus running afoul of the temple priests and getting noticed by the Roman guards supposedly there for crowd control on the High Holidays.  This connection was necessary to extend Jesus’ effect beyond that of annoying the Jewish elite.  Jesus’ teachings often challenged the religious authority and interpretations of the Jewish priests. He criticized the Pharisees for their rigid adherence to the Law, accusing them of hypocrisy (e.g., Matthew 23:13-36). He claimed authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5-7), which some saw as blasphemous, as only God could forgive sins in their view. His assertion of being the Messiah or Son of God (John 10:30-33) further alarmed the religious establishment, as it disrupted their understanding of the Messiah as a political liberator rather than a divine figure.  The Sadducees, who controlled the Temple, were particularly threatened by Jesus’ actions, such as the cleansing of the Temple (John 2:13-16). He condemned the commercialization of the Temple, which was a significant source of wealth and power for the Sadducees. This act challenged their economic and religious authority.  Jesus attracted large crowds, especially among the marginalized—tax collectors, sinners, and the poor (Luke 15:1-2). His popularity posed a potential threat to the priests’ influence over the Jewish people. The priests, as part of the elite, feared his teachings could incite unrest or undermine their status under Roman rule.  Judea was under Roman occupation, and the priests collaborated with Roman authorities to maintain their power and keep the peace. Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:15) could be misinterpreted as revolutionary, potentially provoking Roman crackdowns. The priests feared that his movement could destabilize their fragile arrangement with Rome (John 11:48).  Jesus’ public criticisms of the priests’ moral failings (e.g., calling them a “brood of vipers,” Matthew 23:33) likely fostered personal animosity. His ability to outmaneuver them in debates (e.g., Matthew 22:15-22) further humiliated them, fueling resentment.

As I noted previously with the satirical caricature of justice with the trial of loopholes in justice of Jesus with the Jewish elite, the temple tantrum is absurd taken as history.  Mark further lampoons this with the idea that Jesus was executed as a political insurrectionist (king of the Jews), but none of his close followers were.  We thus see the image of the young follower in Mark naked/guilty as the naked Adam in the eyes of the world, but clothed in pristine white in the tomb, holy in God’s eyes.  Mark explains that the disciples fled at the arrest, but winks at the reader that he is getting this detail from scripture.  This also shows Jesus never taught that he would die and be raised, because why would the disciples be armed or get violent at the arrest. 

In the end, as I’ve been arguing, what we seem to have with Jesus is a historical fictional story about a failed messianic claimant if he had been the especially beloved of God.  God was thought to have punished the Jews post 70 CE and Bar Kokhba for unjustly killing his beloved son.  Fredriksen’s historical reconstruction falters on the point that Jesus’ followers were not executed, because in the end he was still executed as a political threat. The idea of killing by stealth come from a larger patterning on Psalms and 2nd Isaiah, in this case Psalms 10:7-8.

One of the great satirical moves of Mark was to craft the execution of Jesus as a political threat without Pilate obtaining a confession or executing Jesus’ followers, the Jesus movement in fact later moving to Jerusalem. It is no more historical than Pilate releasing Barabbas, a known killer of Romans, which instead colors the crucifixion in scapegoat imagery.