Those are nice reviews; I haven't read either book, but you have piqued my interest.
It must be significant that we all elide the cleansing of the temple to just driving *the money-changers* from the temple. Yet both John and the synoptic gospels agree that the object of Jesus' wrath was *merchants* and money changers. Here is Matthew, fo…
Those are nice reviews; I haven't read either book, but you have piqued my interest.
It must be significant that we all elide the cleansing of the temple to just driving *the money-changers* from the temple. Yet both John and the synoptic gospels agree that the object of Jesus' wrath was *merchants* and money changers. Here is Matthew, for example:
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the [584] moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, [585] My house shall be called the house of prayer; [586] but ye have made it a den of thieves.
We instinctively feel that money-changing is inherently less legitimate than any other form of commerce; it pains us to lump them together. Nor is this a purely modern perspective; Augustine argued that there must have been two distinct temple cleaning operations, one of merchants and the other of money-changers. He thought that explained the difference in tone between e.g. "den of thieves" and John's formulation "make not my Father's house a house of merchandise".
I have to say that I don't find this very convincing. Why would Jesus drive out the merchants and leave the money-changers alone first time around, if they were so much worse? And since John mentions both, why should he pull his punches? John:
14 And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money, and overthrew their tables;
16 and to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.
Those are nice reviews; I haven't read either book, but you have piqued my interest.
It must be significant that we all elide the cleansing of the temple to just driving *the money-changers* from the temple. Yet both John and the synoptic gospels agree that the object of Jesus' wrath was *merchants* and money changers. Here is Matthew, for example:
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the [584] moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
13 And said unto them, It is written, [585] My house shall be called the house of prayer; [586] but ye have made it a den of thieves.
We instinctively feel that money-changing is inherently less legitimate than any other form of commerce; it pains us to lump them together. Nor is this a purely modern perspective; Augustine argued that there must have been two distinct temple cleaning operations, one of merchants and the other of money-changers. He thought that explained the difference in tone between e.g. "den of thieves" and John's formulation "make not my Father's house a house of merchandise".
I have to say that I don't find this very convincing. Why would Jesus drive out the merchants and leave the money-changers alone first time around, if they were so much worse? And since John mentions both, why should he pull his punches? John:
14 And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money, and overthrew their tables;
16 and to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.