Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE QUESTION OF JESUS' SELF-UNDERSTANDING §15.3
Most striking is the fact that both John and Thomas record it as a saying of Jesus
himself. 93
On the basis of this evidence, it has to be judged likely both that Jesus did
in fact say something about the destruction (and rebuilding) of the Temple, and
that reports of this saying constituted the principal and most effective testimony
against him at the hearing before Caiaphas. 94 That other testimony was offered is
indicated by Mark and Matthew (Mark 14.55-56/Matt. 26.59-60), but no indication
is given of what it amounted to. 95 And all the testimony against Jesus, including
the testimony on his Temple saying, is branded by Mark and Matthew as
'false'. 96 Yet the fact that John (and Thomas) have no hesitation in attributing
more or less the same saying to Jesus himself confirms the less explicit testimony
of Mark 13.2, that Jesus did indeed say something politically sensitive about the
Temple. However accurate the report of what Jesus actually said, then, we can be
confident that something Jesus had said about the destruction (and restoration) 97
93. Crossan regards GTh 71 as the most original version we have (Historical Jesus 356;
cf. his earlier Fragments 302-12); whereas Becker regards John 2.19 as original (Jesus 329).
94. See also G. Theissen, 'Jesus' Temple Prophecy', Social Reality and the Early Christians
(Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992) 94-114 (especially 94-97); 'a prophecy which demonstrably
caused so much perplexity and difficulty was not attributed to Jesus only at a later
stage' (Theissen and Merz, Historical Jesus 433); Holmen, Jesus 296-301. Full discussion in
K. Paesler, Das Tempelwort Jesu. Die Traditionen von Tempelzerstörung und Tempelerneuerung
im Neuen Testament (FRLANT 184; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1999).
95. Several have argued that Jesus was charged with leading the people astray and false
prophecy (A. Strobel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit [WUNT 21; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980]
81-92; Betz, 'Probleme' 570-96; Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie 1.147-48; Wright, Jesus
439-42, 548-51; Becker, Jesus 336). But although this became a later accusation (see below,
§15.7g), the Gospels do not mention it as part of the accusation at the trial. Jesus is once called
aplanos ('deceiver'), echoing Deut. 13.1-5 (Matt. 27.63; also John 7.12, 47), but Mark knows
nothing of this, and Luke talks in terms of political agitation (Luke 23.2). See also G. N.
Stanton, 'Jesus of Nazareth: A Magician and a False Prophet Who Deceived God's People?' in
Green and Turner, eds., Jesus of Nazareth 164-80 (here 175-80).
96. There could be several reasons why the first followers of Jesus regarded the testimony
at the hearing as 'false'. In particular, did Jesus claim that he himself would destroy the
Temple (Mark 14.58, but cf. Matt. 26.61; Acts 6.14, but cf. John 2.19)? And the second half of
the saying ('I will build another in three days') may have proved embarrassing for some of Jesus'
followers (cf. Acts 6.14 and John 2.21); but see above, §13.3g. See further the full discussion
in J. Schlosser, 'La parole de Jesus sur la fin du Temple', NTS 36 (1990) 398-414; Brown,
Death of the Messiah 444-60; and my '"Are You the Messiah?": Is the Crux of Mark 14.61-62
Resolvable?', in D. G. Horrell and C. M. Tuckett, eds., Christology, Controversy and Community,
D. R. Catchpole FS (NovTSup 99; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 1-22 (here 5-6).
97. The considerations which follow depend only on the talk of building the Temple being
part of the accusation against Jesus, but it is quite likely that Jesus did say something to this
effect (see n. 96); cf. Fredriksen, Jesus 226-28; Lüdemann, Jesus 438; contrast Becker, who removes
the key elements in the account as Markan redaction (Jesus 330, 347-48).
632