Kata Markon

["James Crossley" <crossleyjames AT hotmail.com>]

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