88. The Purification of the Temple. (Chapter 8. Events In The Public Life of Jesus, Excluding the Miracles) (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined) (Strauss, David Friedrich)

Jesus, during his first residence in Jerusalem, according to John ^{P.435} (Jn. ii.12ff. parall), undertook the purification of the temple. The ancient commentators thought, and many modern ones still think, that these were separate events, especially as, besides the chronological difference, there is some divergency between the three first evangelists and the fourth in their particulars. While, namely, the former, in relation to the conduct of Jesus, merely speak in general terms of an expulsion, John says that he made a scourge of small cords for this purpose: again, while according to the former, he treats all the sellers alike, he appears, according to John, to make some distinction, and to use the sellers of doves somewhat more mildly; moreover, John does not say that he drove out the buyers, as well as the sellers. There is also a difference as to the language used by Jesus on the occasion; in the synoptic Gospels, it is given in the form of an exact quotation from the Old Testament; in John, merely as a free allusion. But, above all, there is a difference as to the result: in the fourth gospel, Jesus is immediately called to account; in the synoptic Gospels, we read nothing of this, and according to them, it is not until the following day that the Jewish authorities put to Jesus a question, which seems to have reference to the purification of the temple (Matt. xxi.23ff.), and to which Jesus replies quite otherwise than to the remonstrance in the fourth gospel. To explain the repetition of such a measure, it is remarked that the abuse was not likely to cease on the first expulsion, and that on every revival of it, Jesus would feel himself anew called on to interfere; that, moreover, the temple purification in John is indicated to be an earlier event than that in the synoptic Gospels, by the circumstance, that the fourth evangelist represents Jesus as being immediately called to account, while his impunity in the other case appears a natural consequence of the heightened consideration which he had in the meantime won.

But allowing to these divergencies their full weight, the agreement between the two narratives preponderates. We have in both the same abuse, the same violent mode of checking it, by casting out the people, and overturning the tables; indeed, virtually the same language in justification of this procedure, for in John, as well as in the other Gospels, the words of Jesus contain a reference, though not a verbally precise one, to Isai. Ivi. 7; Jer. vii. 11. These important points of resemblance must at. least extort such an admission as that of Sieffert, namely, that the two occurrences, originally but little alike, were assimilated by tradition, the features of the one being transferred to the other. But thus much seems clear; the Synoptics know as little of an earlier event of this kind, as in fact of an earlier visit of Jesus to Jerusalem: and the fourth evangelist seems to have passed over the purification of the temple after the last entrance of Jesus into the metropolis, not because he presumed it to be already known from the other Gospels, ^{P.436} but because he believed that he must give an early date to the sole act of the kind with which he was acquainted. It" then each of the evangelists knew only of one purification of the temple, we are not warranted either by the slight divergencies in the description of the event, or by the important difference in its chronological position, to suppose that there were two; since chronological differences are by no means rare in the Gospels, and are quite natural in writings of traditional origin. It is therefore with justice that our most modern interpreters have, after the example of some older ones, declared them selves in favour of the identity of the two histories.

On which side lies the error? We may know beforehand how the criticism of the present day will decide on this question: namely, in favour of the fourth gospel. According to Lueke, the scourge, the diversified treatment of the different classes of traders, the more indirect allusion to the Old Testament passage, are so many indications that the writer was an eye and ear witness of the scene he describes; while as to chronology, it is well known that this is in no decree regarded by the Synoptics, but only by John, so that, according to Sieffert, to surrender the narrative of the latter to that of the former, would be to renounce the certain for the uncertain.

As to John's dramatic details, we may match them by a particular peculiar to Mark, And they would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple (v. 16), which besides has a support in the Jewish custom which did not permit the court of the temple to be made a thoroughfare. Nevertheless, this particular is put to the account of Mark's otherwise ascertained predilection for arbitrary embellishment,what authorizes us to regard similar artistic touches from the fourth evangelist, as necessary proofs of his having been an eye witness? To appeal here to his character of eye witness as a recognized fact, is too glaring a petitio principii, at least in the point of view taken by a comparative criticism, in which the decision as to whether the artistic details of the fourth evangelist are mere embellishments, must depend solely on intrinsic probability.

Although the different treatment of the different classes of men is in itself a probable feature, and the freer allusion to the Old Testament is at least an indifferent one; it is quite otherwise with the most striking feature in the narrative of John. Origen has set the example of objecting to the twisting and application of the scourge of small cords, as far too violent and disorderly a procedure. Modern interpreters soften the picture by supposing that Jesus used the scourge merely against the cattle, (a supposition, however, opposed to the text, which represents all as being driven out by the scourge); yet still they cannot avoid perceiving the use of a scourge at all to be unseemly in a person of the dignity of Jesus, and only ^{P.437} calculated to aggravate the already tumultuary character of the proceeding. The feature peculiar to Mark is encumbered with no such difficulties, and while it is rejected, is this of John .to be received?

Certainly not, if we can only find an indication in what way the fourth evangelist might be led to the free invention of such a particular. Now it is evident from the quotation v. 17, which is peculiar to him, that he looked on the act of Jesus as a demonstration of holy zeal a sufficient temptation to exaggerate the traits of zcalousness in his conduct.

In relation to the chronological difference, we need only remember how the fourth evangelist antedates the acknowledgment, of Jesus as the Messiah by the disciples, and the conferring of the name of Peter on Simon, to be freed from the common assumption of his pre-eminent chronological accuracy, which is alleged in favour of his position of the purification of the temple. For this particular case, however, it is impossible to show any reason why the occurrence in question would better suit the time of the first, than of the last Passover visited by Jesus, whereas there are no slight grounds for the opposite opinion. It is true that nothing in relation to chronology is to be founded on the improbability that Jesus should so early have referred to his death and resurrection, as he must have done, according to John's interpretation of the saying about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple; for we shall see, in the proper place, that this reference to the death and resurrection, owes its introduction into the declaration of Jesus to the evangelist alone. But it is no inconsiderable argument against John's position of the event, that Jesus, with his prudence and tact, would hardly have ventured thus early on so violent an exercise of his Messianic authority. For in that first period of his ministry he had not given himself out as the Messiah, and under any other than Messianic authority, such a step could than scarcely have been hazarded; moreover, he in the beginning rather chose to meet his contemporaries on friendly ground, and it is therefore hardly credible that he should at once, without trying milder means, have adopted an appearance so antagonistic. But to the last week of his life such a scene is perfectly suited.

Then, after his Messianic entrance into Jerusalem, it was his direct aim in all that he did and said, to assert his Messiahship, in defiance of the contradiction of his enemies; then, all lay so entirely at stake, that nothing more was to be lost by such a step.

As regards the nature of the event, Origen long ago thought it incredible, that so great a multitude should have unresistingly submitted to a single man, one, too, whose claims had ever been obsti- ^{P.438} nately contested: his only resource in this exigency is to appeal to the superhuman power of Jesus, by virtue of which he was able suddenly to extinguish the wrath of his enemies, or to render it impotent; and hence Origen ranks this expulsion among the greatest miracles of Jesus. Modern expositors decline the miracle, but Paulus is the only one among them who has adequately weighed Origen's remark, that in the ordinary course of things the multitude would have opposed themselves to a single person. Whatever may be said of the surprise caused by the suddenness of the appearance of Jesus (if, as John relates, he made himself a scourge of cords, he would need some time for preparation), of the force of right on his side (on the side of those whom he attacked, however, there was established usage); or, finally, of the irresistible impression produced by the personality of Jesus (on usurers and cattle-dealers-on brutemen, as Paulus calls them?): still, such a multitude, certain as it might be of the protection of the priesthood, would not have unresistingly allowed themselves to be driven out of the temple by a single man. Hence Paulus is of opinion that a number of others, equally scandalized by the sacrilegious traffic, made common cause with Jesus, and that to their united strength the buyers and sellers were compelled to yield. But this supposition is fatal to the entire incident, for it makes Jesus the cause of an open tumult; and it is not easy either to reconcile this conduct with his usual aversion to every thing revolutionary, or to explain the omission of his enemies to use it as an accusation against him. For that they held themselves bound in conscience to admit that the conduct of Jesus was justifiable in this case, is the less credible, since, according to a rabbinical authority, the Jews appear to have been so far from taking umbrage at the market in the court of the Gentiles that the absence of it seemed to them like a melancholy desolation of the temple. According to this, it is not surprising that Origen casts a doubt on the historical value of this narrative, by the expression, "if it really happened" , and at most admits that the evangelist, in order to present an idea allegorically, also borrowed the form of an actual occurrence.

But in order to contest the reality of this history, in dcilance of the agreement of all the four evangelists, the negative grounds hitherto adduced must be seconded by satisfactory positive ones, from whence it might be seen how the primitive Christian legend could be led to the invention of such a scene, apart from any historical foundation. But these appear to be wanting. For our only positive data in relation to this occurrence are the passages cited by the Synoptics from Tsaiah and Jeremiah, prohibiting that the temple ^{P.439} should be made a den of robbers; and the passage from Malachi iii.1-3, according to which it was expected that in the Messianic times the Lord would suddenly come to his temple, that no one would stand before his appearing, and that he would undertake a purification of the people and the worship. Certainly these passages seem to have some bearing on the irresistible reforming activity of Jesus in the temple, as described by our evangelists; but there is so little indication that they had reference in particular to the market in the outer court of the temple, that it seems necessary to suppose an actual opposition on the part of Jesus to this abuse, in order to account for the fulfilment of the above prophecies by him being represented under the form of an expulsion of buyers and sellers.