Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§15.3 Who Did They Think Jesus Was?
phetically subversive of the priestly power, upon which Israel's stability under
Roman rule was thought to depend, would provide sufficient excuse for a policy
of realpolitik to dictate Jesus' removal from the scene. 121 Whether Jesus' saying
about the Temple was uttered by him on that occasion (as in John 2.19) or not, it
seems to have provided the excuse needed.
To what extent Jesus' Temple demonstration can be described as 'messianic'
is less clear. The essential ambiguity of the scene means that its significance
would be more in the eye of the beholder than in the intention of Jesus, and
most of the options would have at least some messianic overtones. 122 Despite
Brandon, we can be confident that it was not a military action or a serious attempt
to capture the Temple platform. Any such threat would certainly have met
with a prompt response from the Antonia fortress overlooking the Temple
mount. 123 But any disturbance in an area so sensitive both strategically and religiously
might well have raised messianic questions in the minds of many. That
the symbolism of Jesus' action spoke of the Temple's destruction 124 is certainly
possible, though the point is hardly as clear-cut as Sanders assumed. Alternatively,
if the symbolism spoke to some of condemnation of the present procedures
for sacrifice (the principal purpose of the Temple), 125 then the coherence of
that symbolism with Jesus' dictum on the Temple's future would no doubt raise
the same questions about Jesus' messianic pretensions. Alternatively again, the
action may well have appeared to others as some sort of symbolic purification
(cleansing) of the Temple. 126 After all, the thought of such purification as necessary
if Zion was to fulfil its eschatological function is clearly present in several
121. See, e.g., Crossan and Reed, Excavating Jesus 220-22, and further below, §17.1e.
122. See also my Partings 47-49.
123. The point is vividly illustrated by the episode in Acts 21.30-35 (see further Schürer,
History 1.366). Pace Horsley, Jesus 297-98, the numbers involved in the events of 4 BCE and 66 CE
made for quite different and much more serious situations (Josephus, War 2.10-13, 409-32); see
further Catchpole, ' "Triumphal" Entry' 332-33. Chilton envisages a religious protest (rather than
a military attack), involving 'an army of zealots' (150-200 men) intent on purifying the Temple,
but completed with such speed that the Temple police were outmanoeuvred and the Roman garrison
were unable to act before the protesters melted into the crowds (Rabbi Jesus 228-29).
124. Sanders, Jesus 61-71; also Historical Figure 253-62; Horsley, Jesus 299-300;
Crossan, Historical Jesus 357-59; Lüdemann, Jesus 77-78.
125. The action against the money-changers and pigeon-sellers could be read as an attack
on the Temple tax itself, necessary to maintain the daily sacrifices, and on the cult itself,
but equally as a protest against corruption and abuse of the system — perhaps even as an expression
of country-boy outrage at the massive institution and bureaucracy involved! See further
below, §17.3.
126. M. D. Hooker, 'Traditions about the Temple in the Sayings of Jesus', BJRL 70
(1988) 7-19 (here 17-18); Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie 1.150-51; cf. the earlier
'cleansings' (katharizein) of Nehemiah (Neh. 13.4-9) and Judas (1 Mace. 4.36-58).
639