In order to understand Jesus’s violent outburst in the temple, scholars frequently turn to Jewish texts from the late Second Temple Period, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. The same texts are used to support contrasting explanations of the event. This paper evaluates these interpretations and offers an analysis of the key texts on the Jerusalem temple in the Scrolls. It concludes that the negative attitudes towards the temple that are reflected in Jesus’s action and some of the sectarian writings from Qumran share an expectation that the temple would become defiled in the end time. From such an apocalyptic perspective, it did not matter how the temple priests actually ran their business, since they were bound to be criticized by those Jews, such as Jesus and the Qumran sectarians, for whom the final age had arrived.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Adela Yarbro Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on Ancient Religion and Philosophy: Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 45–61. See also Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 435–39.
Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, eds., Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).
Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” 2640; Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 450–51; Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 58–59.
Craig A. Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” in Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity and Restoration, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 395–439.
Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 170. Snodgrass also finds support for the two aspects although he does not agree that the act was primarily a symbol of destruction; Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 466. John Dominic Crossan views the act as a symbolic destruction of the temple, the symbol of “all that was nonegalitarian, patronal, and even oppressive on both the religious and the political level”; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 360.
Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 48. So also Timothy Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 164.
Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 63. Cf. Collins’s critique against this perspective; Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 48.
Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 319–80; idem, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 395–439.
Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 455–60. He states, “It would be naïve to argue that corruption was not a factor” (p. 460), although he sees commercialism as a greater motivating factor. Wardle also sees a symbolic enactment of the destruction of the temple, but this is not the main motivation; Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity, 177–81.
Regev, “Moral Impurity and the Temple,” 397–402. Additional interpretations that have not gained wide acceptance should also be mentioned: (1) Jesus attempted to reform the cult in line with his alternative view on sacrifices and purity as suggested by Bruce Chilton, The Temple of Jesus. (2) Jesus purposely offered a new way of atonement to the sacrificial service through his upcoming death, advocated by Jostein Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” 2668–75; Jostein Ådna, “Jesus’ Symbolic Act in the Temple (Mark 11:15–17): The Replacement of the Sacrificial Cult by His Atoning Death,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 461–75. (3) Jesus intended to start a revolution, cf. Samuel G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (New York: Scribner’s, 1967), 331–36.
Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 222–45.
Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 65–66. See Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” 2662.
Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, 212–14.
Ibid., 213.
Snodgrass writes, “Even if we do not understand all the details, clearly Jesus thought that something was woefully wrong with the most sacred place in Israel.” Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 474.
Ibid., 67.
Ibid., 86. Insightfully, Sanders understands John’s emphasis that he did not see a temple in the city (Rev 22:21) as a polemic against the common expectation of an end-time temple.
Ibid., 89.
Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 53; Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 320–37. Evans tries to get around the problem by looking for “patterns or themes” (320). However, the destruction of the temple must have had a major impact on the reflections on how the temple was run.
Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” 2655. See also Jostein Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 335–42.
Charlotte Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 37–38.
Ibid., 69.
Ibid., 129. This passage appears in the part that was likely composed in the 160s bce. The document was composed during the crisis under Antiochus iv Epiphanes, but was later updated to include references to Hasmoneans and Herod the Great.
4Q390 2 i 8–10 reads, “they have chosen to enrich themselves by ill-gotten wealth and illegal profit [. . .] they will rob, oppress one another, and they will defile my temple [they will profane my sabbaths,] they will for[ge]t my fes]tivals, and with fo[reign)ers [t]hey will profane their offspr[ing]. Their priests will commit violence.” See Eshel, “4Q390, the 490-Year Prophecy,” 104–5.
James G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 23.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 690 | 114 | 41 |
Full Text Views | 487 | 8 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 278 | 19 | 3 |
In order to understand Jesus’s violent outburst in the temple, scholars frequently turn to Jewish texts from the late Second Temple Period, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. The same texts are used to support contrasting explanations of the event. This paper evaluates these interpretations and offers an analysis of the key texts on the Jerusalem temple in the Scrolls. It concludes that the negative attitudes towards the temple that are reflected in Jesus’s action and some of the sectarian writings from Qumran share an expectation that the temple would become defiled in the end time. From such an apocalyptic perspective, it did not matter how the temple priests actually ran their business, since they were bound to be criticized by those Jews, such as Jesus and the Qumran sectarians, for whom the final age had arrived.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 690 | 114 | 41 |
Full Text Views | 487 | 8 | 1 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 278 | 19 | 3 |