Talk:Cleansing of the Temple

message: This article is critically reviewed in this article by an expert.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To my eyes it appears to be not so much a review of this article as a critique of Wikipedia by someone with an axe to grind. The author's name (Janet M. Giddings) generates a total of four ghits, which do not all appear to relate to the same person. Indeed, it could be that article linked to here is Ms Giddings's only net presence. Of course, you don't have to be on the net to be an expert, but these days serious academics tend to be more visible. BTLizard 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Header added to move thread into discussion

message: Most often when this passage is cited, it is done so in service to any of 4 divergent points: 1. Jesus was not a pacifist, advocating and using force in cases of flagrant abuse and/or violations of property rights; 2. Jesus considered profiteering offensive to the point of justifying violence to stop it, specifically challenging Jewish custom; and 3. Jesus (anachronistically)recognized the right of the individual to make a "citizen's arrest" in situations of ongoing or flagrant abuse, using violence to the extent necessary to intervene in the illegal behavior. Yet there is no mention in the article of scholarly discussion or popular interpretation of these "pro-violence" passages. Overall, this is allegedly the only place in the Bible in which Jesus appears to exercise (and therefore, implicitly approve) violence, which most Christian societies (and many groups and/or individuals) claim as a right or responsibility under some circumstances. 4. This story also states the importance to keep the house of God pure. When Jesus overturned the Dove tables this is a symbol to all of mankind that the house of God shouldn't be used as a house of business. Even if the items being sold are used for the worship of God PlayCuz (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no pacifist, but I'm not sure how this advocates violence. If anything, it displays the futility of violence as this certainly as not the end of the practices that Jesus was protesting. It ended when Temple sacrifices ended. And these words of mine, like yours, are original research. Unless, of course, you can provide some sources.  (... from 7 years ago ;) ) 2601:645:4100:BED2:617F:E19C:358A:6D90 (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident's importance omitted 

message: IMO, there is too much attention (undue weight) given to the doves in this article.  The article is about Jesus and the moneychangers, not Jesus and the doves.  Comments? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing the obvious redundancy which was my unintentional error. IMO, the paragraph has ended up well. Afaprof01 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue weight? 

message: I'm an Atheist and don't know much about Christianity. Did Jesus have some kind of authority? Because I am having issues understanding how one man could destroy other peoples livelihood without them resisting. Was it some super rage that gave him god strength? Did people respect him and fly? Where they so stunned they fled?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.188.56 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Despite not looking for it, Jesus had considerable political clout because of the mob, to put it in Roman terms. Messianic figures were common in Palestine during this time. For his specific time, it would seem that Jesus carried the largest following, certainly the Gospels describe it as enough to put fear into the hearts of the Jewish establishment.  The evening before the crucifixion, the Temple authorities were afraid to arrest Jesus in broad day light and perhaps instigate a riot against them, and so they resorted to arresting him at night away from the crowds. The same principle applies to the leeway Jesus had when performing a that radical act in the Temple courtyard a few days before. He was at the very height of his popularity. The rebels were seeking to ride his sizable coattails to a violent overthrow of the Jewish establishment and the Roman occupation. This sort of rebellious display was right up the rebels alley. The last thing the establishment wanted (Jewish or Roman) was an all out, concerted rebellion. I suppose they felt the easiest route was to just let Jesus do his protest in the Temple and hope it dies down... or die with him.  2601:645:4100:BED2:617F:E19C:358A:6D90 (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: While it is obvious that Jesus said he didn't want God's house used for profiteering, it is unclear on what is acceptable.   Is it acceptable to use the church for political gain?   If Jesus were alive today, would he like the involvement of the church in politics to the point that politicians often speak at or give "sermons" for political influence?   Is this not profiting from the church?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.76.26 (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the church be used for political conversations? 

message: The money changers provided a service to the worshipers. The Roman coins had the image of the Caesar, a graven image, which was in contravention of the Torah. Changing the coins for simple coins without the graven image was necessary to maintain the holiness of the Temple. Why was 'Jesus' so incensed by this? He should have been pleased. Clearly the author of the text was not conversant with the Jewish religion and made up this story to denigrate the Jews. Just one of many inaccuracies in the Christian Bible. 'Jesus' is a myth written by liberals with a political agenda which after a few hundred years brought them to power across the globe. That power is now waning and a new mythology, a new power, that of Islam is taking over. Islam rejects the divinity of 'Jesus'. Islam does not rely on miracles and proof-texts for its rational. It is the inarticulate duplicitous ramblings of a war lord out to conquer the entire world!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.70.234 (talk) 10:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Or it wasn't made up and the Jewish establishment had sunken so low and drifted from being the blessing they were blessed to be, that no one could object loud enough to stop the corruption.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4100:BED2:617F:E19C:358A:6D90 (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

text: This may be true, but it is not what the article currently says. It implies that Tyrian money was used but that money with graven images could not be. That is a contradiction. There presumably was a reason why money was changed to Tyrian money - whether it was a widely accepted reason is another matter. The Tyrian article suggests it was to do with silver content. I've added a request for a citation because at the moment the article does not make sense. Francis Davey (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money changers 

message: Over on reddit, several Orthodox Christians are confused by the part that says that Eastern Orthodoxy rejects the idea that "this is the only account of Jesus using physical force in any of the Gospels".  We've added the citation needed tag to that claim, but we think that this part should be removed unless someone can find a citation for it.  And if a citation is found, it should probably be reworded since we are quite sure that this is not a dogmatic teaching of the entire church, but might be a view held by some in the church.
Here is the edit that introduced this claim.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhknight (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as it's been unsourced for a year, and it looks to be by an anonymous editor who made no other contribution, I just removed it.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodoxy rejects this as Jesus's "only physical force" 

message: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cleansing_of_the_Temple&curid=4775253&diff=712183592&oldid=711745740 some clean-up needed, at the least. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very dubious additions, based on far later Jewish sources 

message: In Mark 11:15-19 Only the selling of doves.
In Matt 21:12-17 Only the selling of doves.
In Luke 19:45-48 The selling of things (unspecified)
In John 2:13-16 The selling of cattle and sheep (driven out with a whip)
and doves, the most grandiose version, a common practice of this author.
Only in the Gospel of John (John 18:3) do soldiers help to carry out the arrest
of Jesus. 
An analysis and response from the Association of Ancient Historians
according to Brian Messner, Professor of History and Interdisciplinary Studies,
Lincoln Christian University: "Animals would have been kept away from the temple building itself.  In thinking back to the temples I've visited I can't think of a single one that had an animal pen inside the temenos (sacred boundary line) of the temple, so clearly the animals were kept elsewhere.  The Temple in Jerusalem was a large complex of course, and while there is no evidence that animals would have been kept in the main building at the center of the complex, the Gospel accounts do suggest that they were in housed in one or more of the courts surrounding/leading up to the main Temple building. So, that would indeed be different than the typical Greco-Roman practice." Jesus's actions and anger are described as taking place
in the court yard, not inside the temple itself. His anger and actions are centered
on the selling of living creatures. Miistermagico (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different versions of sold items and where they were kept 

message: https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/265167/bird-sacrifice-daf-yomi-244
Miistermagico (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird Sacrifices 

message: Article says:
:Do not mistake Jesus's use of the term "thieves" as literal thieves, but rather robbers of the people's time with God. This sentiment further attempts to be supported; by Jesus's curing of the "blind and the lame" referring to their inability to see God and the resulting weakness due to this fact.
"Do not ...", addressing the reader, is not encyclopaedic in style. The second part, changed in recent edit, is just strange - sentiments do not "attempt" anything, and the semicolon is spurious. I'm not sure what it should say, though, so I'll leave it to others to fix it. But please take a look!--Nø (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed it.Smeat75 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Comment