Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

gmark - Re: Again, the Temple and the fig tree (James Crossley)

gmark AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Kata Markon

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "James Crossley" <crossleyjames AT hotmail.com>
  • To: GMark
  • Subject: Re: Again, the Temple and the fig tree (James Crossley)
  • Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 8:15:28


I think there are serious problems with viewing the Temple action as an act
of prophetic symbolism. It is worth noting the commonly cited passages in
the Hebrew scriptures concerning prophetic symbolism. In Isaiah 20 we are
told why walking around naked was important: 'Just as my servant Isaiah
has walked around naked and barefoot for three years as a sign and a
portent against Egypt and Ethiopia/Nubia, so shall the knig of Assyria
lead away the Egyptians and the Ethiopians/Nubians as captives...' (Isa.
20:3-4). Likewise we can compare Ezekiel laying on his sides which is
explained as judgement (Ezek. 4-5) and various other prophetic actions in
the Hebrew scriptures that are explained (e.g. Jer. 19:1-13; 27-28; Ezek.
12:1-16; 24:15-24). In light of this we would expect Mark to have made it
clear precisely what Jesus' actions meant, i.e. explained Jesus' actions
just like we find with the Hebrew prophets.

What makes the prophetic symbolism position even more unlikely, I think,
is the the evidence collected by C. A. Evans which shows that different
groups and individuals believed that the Temple was finacially exploiting
people (e.g. 'Jesus' Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of
Destruction?', pp.237-270 CBQ, 51, 1989; Jesus and His Contemporaries:
Comparative Studies, 1995: chapters 7-9). This makes excellent sense of
the Markan text. Jesus overturns the tables of the moneychangers and those
who sold doves. He calls the temple a 'den of robbers' (Mk. 11:15-17).
Worth noting also is that pigeons and doves were sacrificed by the poor
according to the Torah (Lev. 5:7; 12:8); Simon ben Gamaliel (c.
10-80CE)is said to have complained at the rising price of doves and the
problems it posed for sacrifices (m. Ker. 1:7). Jesus too was concerned
about economic exploitation with meant that poor people could not observe
the Torah properly. Mark, I would argue, is reacting to these abuses and
the withering fig tree is a story against the Temple authorities with the
implication of destruction (11:23) just as Jeremiah 7(cf. 'the den of
robbers' Jer.7:14) contain major threats in reaction to the Temple abuses.
Consequently, I cannot agree that this passage presupposes the destruction
of the Temple and cannot be used to date Mark in any way.

Yours,

James Crossley,
Dept. of Theology,
University of Nottingham,
U.K.

crossleyjames AT hotmail.com




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page