Thanks, mycritters

[okasha]

for a new perspective on Jesus' chasing out the money-changers. I'd always assumed that he was po'd at the chicanery and cheating going on,charging poor folk inflated prices, but of course the outcome of his little dust-up would be to protect the prospective sacrificial animals. Good on ya, as the Divine Miz Molly would say.

[Critters2]

1. That idea was introduced to me by Stephen Kaufman

founder of the Christian Vegetarian Association, and a good friend. The texts don't say Jesus was angry about the changing of money. Nor does it say that the money changers were cheating anyone, as has been taught about this text, traditionally. Moneychanging was necessary, because coins with images of Caesar would have been considered idolatrous, and thus, not allowed in the Temple. Jesus doesn't seem to take issue with this.

In a couple of the Gospels, this is the turning point at which the Temple leadership decide Jesus should be gotten rid of. There's been a tradition of reading that, which I consider guided by anti-senitic stereotyping, that says the priests were upset about a loss of income. More likely, they were genuinely concerned that a respected rabbi freeing sacrificial animals wuold move people away from the Temple practices they thought were necessary to relate to God. I don't like to think of the Jewish leadership as so much evil as misguided.

One of the Gospels (guess who doesn't have her Bible in front of her) talks about Jesus driving out the animals. And why were the animals there? To be sacrificed. I really believe that what moved Jesus to lose his temper was the practice of animal sacrifice. And I like a Messiah who would get pissed off about such an atrocity.

Jesus would be in good company. A good many of the prophets also spoke against animal sacrifice. I'm often amazed at how much of what Jesus says isn't new, but is directly from Jewish teachings--often from the prophets.

I see you found my little tete a tete in R/T. I admit, I was not on my best behavior, but I think I now know how a wildebeest feels when surrounded by lions or hyenas. Hence the emotional thrashing about. Again, that's just not a place I should go.

Thanks for the "thanks"!

Critters

[okasha]

2. Had to go look it up. It was John.

He gives a far more detailed description than the synoptics, which all three treat it very briefly. There are parts of John that, IMHO, are from eyewitness testimony, and I think this might be one of them.

Oy, R/T. What a trainwreck. I couldn't resist sticking my own nose back in. The sad thing is that Mr. Wiggles' thread was progressing quite nicely toward actually beginning to address the problem before a couple inveterates chimed in.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. Interesting also that John has Jesus' overthrowing of tables right away,

one of the very first things Jesus does in his ministry after being baptised.

The other gospels all have it during his final week.

[celtdem]

4. Interesting discussion

[Critters2]

7. When there's disagreement between the Synoptics and John

I tend to go with the Synoptics for historicity. Mostly because John is thought to have been written later, and historical accuracy is less valuable to John than to the others (though none of them thought it as important as we post-enlightenment types).

I really think interrupting the sacrifice procedures would have been the last straw for the leadership, and could easily have started the process toward crucifixion.

I've had people insist it must have been a money issue that caused Jesus to lose his temper, because he calls the Temple a "den of thieves". Well, it seems to me that taking animals that could have been used to feed and clothe the poor and working class faithful, and giving it to the leadership might have struck Jesus as "theft". I still think there's some latent anti-Semitism in the assumptions that Jesus was pissed off about Jewish leadership overcharging people. And again, scripture doesn't even hint at that.

I will say that I find the synoptics easier to preach on this than Joh, because of placement. Among other things, it's unlikely Jesus spent much time in Jerusalem early in his ministry. ISTM.

[celtdem]

5. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to disagree with ya, there, Okasha :)

I don't think John is an eyewitness account. I think it's secondhand, written from accounts given by the "Beloved Disciple". I strongly recommend the work of Raymond Brown when it comes to Johannine issues. I once took a course on Johannine Literature using two books by Brown--_The Community of the Beloved Disciple_ and his Anchor Bible commentary on the Gospel of John. Whenever anyone asks me about John, I tell 'em to read Brown!

[Critters2]

6. Community of the Beloved Disciple is a great book

Made me fall in love with the books of John. Short, easy read, too.

[okasha]

8. Hey, celtdem. I think I made myself obscure.

I'm a grantwriter and about four hours ago turned in the last of three projects within less than a week, so the old brain may not be firing on all two cylinders. :hangover: (Not hungover. Just the closest thing we have to a headache smiley.)

Anyways, what I meant to say is pretty much what you said. I think there's a layer of material in John that originated with the Beloved Disciple, whether he wrote it down himself or someone transcribed it from his dictation or from what the writer him/herself remembered of the BD's recollection. From what we see in the Last Supper and Passion narratives, I don't believe he can be identified with John son of Zebedee. The fact that he can apparently be recognized by the butler and get into the High Priest's house by the front door while Peter has to wait in the courtyard, the fact that he holds back at the tomb until he knows there's no dead body in it, are to me strong indications that he was one of the Temple priests. That would also base him in Jerusalem, and make it easy for him to be present when Jesus drove out the moneychangers--and the critters along with them. If part of what Jesus wanted to convey here was that the regime of animal/blood sacrifice was ended, he'd also have a better understanding of that than the Greek or highly Hellenized authors of the synoptics. They may have left out that bit simply because they didn't understand it