Dean Adams Final Paper REL 4260 5.4.15

Jesus’ Temple Act: Inquiry, Interpretation, and Application

Dean Harrison AdamsREL 4260: The Life of Christ

May 4, 2015

It is common for the name “Jesus” to evoke images that reflect his gentle, tender, and

caring attributes: a shepherd tending a flock of sheep, a kind teacher welcoming children, or a

healer restoring the sick and the lame. Less often will one immediately make the connection to a

man disrupting Temple activities, brandishing a whip of cords, and overturning tables. How

could such a Jesus possibly be the same one who calmed the storm, commanded his disciples to

be peaceful and not violent (cf. Matt 26:51-52), and even raised the dead to life? Moreover, how

does the account of Jesus’ Temple act in all four Gospels1 offer insight into his ministry and

message? A survey of the text’s social, political, economic, and religious background across the

Gospels reveals that the Jesus in question is, in fact, historically, prophetically, and theologically

genuine. Therefore, a thorough examination of Jesus’ Temple act gives valuable perspective to

Jesus’ intentions and offers applicable insight into the various milieu of contemporary culture.

The pericope under scrutiny is often called “The Cleansing of the Temple,” among

others, but such a title erroneously implies that Jesus’ actions ritually purified the Temple.2 The

concept of Temple defilement has also been “particularly susceptible to anti-Jewish propagandic

use.”3 Thus, “Temple act” better serves the broad scope of interpretation one may glean from the

text. Since the Temple is the setting for the encounter, it is important to consider its manifold

significance. First, a temple (Lat. templum) is “a sacred, demarcated place . . . set aside for the

purpose of augury.”4 As such, the Temple of Jerusalem had several regulations for visitors,

1 Matt 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-19, Luke 19:45-48, and John 2:13-22.

2 Note on Mark 11:12-14; Pheme Perkins, “The Gospel of Mark,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, edited by Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995).

3 Note on Matt 21:12-17; M. Eugene Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, edited by Leander E. Keck. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995).

4 John M. Lundquist, “Temple,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, edited by David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1280.

Adams 2

moneychangers, pigeon-dealers, and priests. In addition to enforcing a high standard of

cleanliness and ritual purity,5 Temple authorities made certain that Gentiles did not enter the

inner court. They remained outside in the hieron,6 the Court of the Gentiles, a vast thirty-five

acre plaza7 permitted to non-Jews. The site of the Temple act most likely occurred in a section of

the Court of the Gentiles to the south of the Temple called the Royal Portico, where visitors

could exchange currency and purchase the items they needed for making sacrifices. One could

bring his or her own sacrifice on the journey to Jerusalem, but the animal could be injured along

the way, causing it to fail the rigorous priestly inspection that required spotless and unblemished

sacrifices.8 Hence, the Temple market served the tasks of exchanging money and selling animals

for sacrifice. The roles and practices of the people who provided these services are due further

investigation.

Several individuals were involved in the Temple economy, but few were as conspicuous

as the moneychanger. In 1st century Palestine, moneychangers were “banker[s] who exchanged

local currency for that of a different country.”9 The month leading up to Passover ushered in the

time when Jews came up to Jerusalem to make their sacrifices, and Jewish males were required

to pay an annual half-shekel temple tax worth approximately two denarii.10 Jewish authorities

5 Ibid.

6 Raymond E. Brown, S.S., John I–XII, The Anchor Bible, vol. 29, edited by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), 115.

7 K. C. Hanson and Douglas E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998), 130.

8 J. Ådna, “Temple Act,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed., edited by Joel B. Green (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013), 948.

9 Steven M. Sheeley, “Money-changer,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, edited by David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 916.

10 William Foxwell Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, The Anchor Bible, vol. 26, edited by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 255.

Adams 3

required that the tax be paid in the Tyrian shekel either because Roman coinage portrayed

offensive images and inscriptions11 or because of the shekel’s “metallurgic purity”12 in a time of

“inflationary instability.”13 Moneychangers charged interest for their services,14 which brings into

question their role in provoking Jesus’ anger. However, it was the priestly elite who controlled

the Temple and its generated revenue.15 A brief venture into the social aspects of the Temple

during Passover will serve as an appropriate pretext to the Temple act’s treatment in the Gospels.

The festivals were peak periods at the Temple. Gail R. O’Day explains, “The festivals

were times for ‘remembering’ . . . as well as for feasting and celebrating. During all the

pilgrimage festivals, . . . huge crowds of pilgrims would congregate in Jerusalem (Josephus

estimates as many as 2,700,000).”16 With such a large crowd, one may ask, how did Jesus

interact with every single moneychanger and pigeon-dealer, while catching the attention of every

pilgrim and onlooker in the Temple? In fact, several scholars argue that Jesus’ Temple act did

not catch as much attention as is popularly believed.17 M. Eugene Boring agrees, “Jesus, even

with the aid of his small band of disciples, . . . could not have closed down, or even disrupted, the

Temple business.”18 Whether or not Jesus engaged the entire throng of pilgrims, a large crowd of

11 Sheeley, “Money-changer,” 916.

12 Gerald M. Bilkes, “Money-changer,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2009), 137.

13 Ådna, “Temple Act,” 948.

14 Bilkes, “Money-changer,” 137.

15 Hanson and Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, 137.

16 Note on John 2:13-22; Gail R. O’Day, “The Gospel of John,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, edited by Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995).

17 Albright and Mann, Matthew, 254-55.

18 Note on Matt 21: 12-17; Boring, “Matthew.”

Adams 4

onlookers would have certainly witnessed the intense scene. However, they likely concluded that

Jesus had simply been “cheated” out of his money like the hundreds who had gone before him.19

These claims seem depreciative to the significance of Jesus’ Temple act; however, this is not

necessarily so. The Gospels are replete with instances in which Jesus’ audience does not

comprehend his message. A review of the Temple act across the Gospels will shed light on its

specific use and function.

The Temple act’s complex placement across the Synoptic and Johannine traditions

reflects a rich heritage of oral, literary, and theological interpretation. One of the first questions

that arises when approaching the pericope is how often the act occurred and when.20 Since John

records three distinct journeys to Jerusalem and places the Temple act at the beginning of Jesus’

ministry, it would appear that the Synoptics describe a separate act following his final entry into

Jerusalem. However, according to Raymond E. Brown, S.S., “not only do the two traditions

describe basically the same actions, but also it is not likely that such a serious public affront to

the Temple would be permitted twice.”21 The general consensus of biblical scholarship is that the

Temple act happened once, which linguistic parallels in the Greek further corroborate.22 If the

Temple act happened only once, the question remains as to what time in Jesus’ ministry did he

confront the moneychangers and pigeon-dealers. David Seeley states, “John 2:13-22 seems to be

later than Mark 11:15-19. In fact, everything in the former can readily be seen as an elaboration

19 David Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55, no. 2 (April 1, 1993), 267.

20 G. Henton Davies and J. E. Morgan-Wynne, The Last Seven Days: The Story of Jesus and Holy Week, Regent’s Study Guide 7, edited by Paul S. Fiddes (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 1999), 19.

21 Brown, John I–XII, 117.

22 Albright and Mann, Matthew, 256.

Adams 5

of the Marcan version or as typical of the Johannine tradition.”23 Such a view prioritizes the

Synoptic tradition, which places the Temple act on either the first day (Matthew and Luke) or the

second day (Mark) of the Passion Week.24 Nonetheless, arguments have been made for

Johannine priority on the basis of its multiple Jerusalem accounts and timely mention of John the

Baptist.25 But chronology is just one aspect of the complex Temple act tradition. An exploration

of the literary elements is necessary for proper treatment of the pericope in its Gospel context.

Across the four Gospel traditions, the Temple act makes a dramatic literary entrance.

Whether following the “triumphal entry,” as in the Synoptics, or the “wedding at Cana,” as in

John, it resonates strongly with the specific message of each Gospel. Before such individualized

treatment, though, it is necessary to compare and contrast the parallels and omissions within the

text. Overall, Matthew and Luke seem to source from Mark, and John appears to be altogether

independent of the Synoptics.26 Matthew and Mark agree, in particular, on the “view of judgment

and abolition of the temple cult.”27 Such agreement may reflect similarities in audience. Matthew

is directed toward a primarily Jewish circle, making the affairs of the Temple highly important.

Mark relies heavily on the theme of judgment and tribulation to carry the message of the Gospel

to a heavily persecuted audience. Concerning Luke, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. explains, “though

inspired by the Marcan version, Luke has considerably redacted the Marcan source, and yet there

23 Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act,” 272.

24 Albright and Mann, Matthew, 255.



27 Ibid., 951.

Adams 6

is no real evidence that he has used any alternated source”28 (likely Q). Luke departs from Mark

in having Jesus go immediately to the Temple and greatly reduces the narration of the Temple

act.29 J. Ådna highlights distinct differences between the first two Gospel accounts: “Compared

to Mark, Matthew omits the ban on carrying vessels and the phrase ‘for all the nations’ in the

saying about the temple as a house of prayer, and further, he places the cursing of the fig tree as

one uninterrupted scene after the temple act.”30 Reflecting on the relationship between the

Temple act and the cursing of the fig tree, Darrell L. Bock says the two “belong together in the

narration.”31 Once again, Luke appears to simplify the narrative by omitting the cursing of the fig

tree, while Matthew condenses it. Ultimately from a literary analysis, it appears that Mark carries

Synoptic priority. Despite questions of historical accuracy, John’s Temple act remains significant

to interpretation and impressive in its detail and scope. Fitzmyer attests, “The Johannine form of

the account is actually fuller than that of Mark and . . . relates the purging to the words of Jesus

about the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple—words preserved elsewhere in the Marcan

and Matthean Gospels, but not in Luke.”32 What the reader finds is that the Temple act is

uniquely preserved in all four accounts with unique facets of the scene. These perspectives help

to give a more accurate understanding of the specific message of each Gospel.

28 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Luke X–XXIV, The Anchor Bible, vol. 28A, edited by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986), 1260.

29 Note on Luke 19:45-46; R. Alan Culpepper, “The Gospel of Luke,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, edited by Leander E. Keck (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995).


31 Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), 318.

32 Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV, 1262.

Adams 7

The first Gospel to be examined is Mark, as it holds literary priority in the Synoptics in

the eyes of most scholars. Seeley’s argues, “because certain problems arise in the process of

placing the temple act in a historical context, the possibility will be entertained that the act is

simply a literary creation by Mark.”33 He concludes, “Logic dictates that the compositional

alternative be chosen over the historical one.”34 While a paper of this length cannot produce an

exhaustive rebuttal, one particular remark must be made. Although Seeley’s article treats the

Temple act with appropriate historical consideration, his thesis errs in a dangerous way from a

theological perspective. It is difficult to place Jesus’ miracles and eventual resurrection into a

historical context, but that does not invalidate their historicity, let alone reduce them to literary

creations. Nonetheless, Mark’s use of literary elements does produce a vivid image of the

Temple act.

Two literary images stand out in the context of Mark: the hindering of the “vessels” and

the Markan sandwich connecting the Temple act to the cursing of the fig tree. Ådna addresses

the former from Mark 11:16, saying, “This prohibition often is understood as an expression of

concern for the temple’s holiness: Jesus did not accept that people casually were carrying things

with them that might be impure into the temple area, or that they abused this area by using it as a

shortcut on their way through town.”35 The word used for “vessel” in the Greek is skeuos, which

refers to “a clay or stone vessel used for storing and transporting either money or vegetable

products of some kind.”36 One can envision these vessels being turned over and broken by Jesus,

as he makes clear his message: “You have made [God’s house] a den of robbers” (v 17). This

33 Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act,” 264.

34 Ibid., 283.


36 Ibid.

Adams 8

pronouncement of judgment relates to the cursing of the fig tree. Mark’s explicit use of prophecy

illustrates the symbolism of the cursed fig tree as a foreshadowing of the Temple destruction.37

Ådna claims, “The evangelist Mark sets a striking compositional mark in framing the temple act

with the cursing of a fig tree and, as a result, its withering. This clearly is a symbol of judgment. .

. . the judgment applies to the Jewish leaders and the temple, which has deteriorated to a den of

robbers.”38 The images in Mark agree with the Gospel’s purpose in establishing proper

discipleship: one must walk holy and upright by the power of Jesus or else he or she will wither

like the fig tree.

Matthew and Luke reiterate the major themes of the Markan narrative in their own

context. They both use the Temple act as an introduction to larger and more prominent

narratives: healing and teaching, respectively. In addition to the emphasis on healing, Jesus’

words in Matthew, written years after the Temple destruction in 70 CE, “represent a

retrospective vindication of God’s judgment on the Temple and the people as a whole.”39

Matthew’s focus on healing immediately following the Temple act reinforces the theme of

restoration (cf. Matthew 11:28-30). Most importantly, Matthew’s account of the Temple act is a

Christological act, “in which Jesus himself replaces the Temple as the locus of God’s presence

among the people.”40 Luke echoes these themes in the context of Jesus’ teaching ministry.41

Jesus’ Temple act in Luke represents his “appropriation of his Father’s house and signaled the

37 Craig A. Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51, no. 2 (April 1, 1989), 238-40.


39 Note on Matt 21:12-17; Boring, “Matthew.”

40 Ibid.

41 Fred B. Craddock, “Luke,” in The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, edited by James L. Mays (New York: HarperCollins, 2000), 950.

Adams 9

continuation of his ministry to outcasts and the coming confrontation with the religious leaders in

Jerusalem.”42 Luke’s account resonates strongly with its general theme and purpose—good news

to the poor, liberation and release of the captives, and freedom for all persecuted and oppressed

peoples (cf. Luke 4:16:30; Isa 61:1-2a).

The Temple act in the Gospel of John is full of meaning and detail, even more so than in

Mark, which provides strong evidence to refute Craig A. Evans who says, “For most scholars, of

course, the tradition of [John] carries little weight in attempting to establish what Jesus really

intended.”43 Much can be interpreted from the Fourth Gospel and used as a helpful tool for

examining Jesus’ intentions in the Synoptics. Only in John does the reader find reference to

Jesus’ “zeal” for his Father’s house and his whip of cords, which was probably made from the

sacrificial animals’ bedding, since weapons were prohibited in the Temple.44 Some scholars view

the violence of John’s narrative as evidence for Jesus’ intention to reject the Temple rather than

reform it.45 The move is thus away from the Jerusalem Temple built by human hands and toward

Jesus as the true and eternal Temple of God (cf. Jn 1:14; 4:19-24).46 Further, John represents

Jesus as fulfilling unique Old Testament prophecies: “Only in John does Jesus speak of not

making the Temple (‘my Father’s house’) a house of trade (Gk. emporion; Lat. emporium; cf.

Zech 14:21) and quote Psalm 69:9. This Psalms quotation has a double sense; it not only refers to

42 Note on Luke 19:45-46; Culpepper, “Luke.”

43 Evans, “Jesus’ Action,” 242.


45 Ibid., 122.


Adams 10

the zeal that motivated Jesus’ deed, but alludes to his own death.”47 John’s use of prophecy

fulfillment supports the Gospel’s claims about Jesus and introduces the discussion of Jesus’

message and ministry.

Having surveyed the background of the text and examined the placement, function, and

purpose of the pericope in the context of each Gospel, a foundation is laid on which one can

build interpretations of Jesus’ message and ministry regarding the Temple act. A study of Jesus’

Temple act reveals three main engagements: people, the Temple, and Old Testament prophecies.

In each of these interactions, Jesus’ actions represent a significant and distinct characteristic. The

first interaction and perhaps the most direct is Jesus’ encounter with people. In context, the

Temple act occurs “just after the crowd’s excited acclaim for Jesus at his entry.”48 Jesus

immediately reveals that his intention is not to keep the peace but to promote the holiness of

what clearly belonged to his Father. Jesus also rejects the way in which the Temple was being

used as a refuge for sin.49 Jesus drives out those who seek refuge from accountability and

“welcomes those who have been neglected and excluded, the blind, the lame, and children, thus

extending the messianic works he had done in Galilee to Judea and Jerusalem.”50 His dealings

with the moneychangers were more prophetic than they were reactions to “economic

exploitation.”51 Jesus’ liberating and prophetic dealings with people lead to deeper hatred by the

47 D. Moody Smith, “John,” in The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, edited by James L. Mays (New York: HarperCollins, 2000), 962.

48 Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, 320.

49 Mark Allan Powell, “Matthew,” in The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, edited by James L. Mays (New York: HarperCollins, 2000), 893.

50 Note on Matt 21:12-17; Boring, “Matthew.”


Adams 11

Jewish authorities, and within that week, Jesus is arrested, tried, found guilty, and crucified by

the Romans.52 His interactions with people give context to his focus on the Temple.

It is clear that Jesus’ Temple act had prophetic and symbolic meaning directed toward the

Jerusalem Temple. Ådna comments, “Any viable interpretation of the temple act must cohere

with other materials in the Gospels on Jesus’ relationship to the temple.”53 Jesus’ intention was

not to discontinue the sacrifices but to rebuke the Temple establishment for its corruption.54 He

was not the first to proclaim judgment on the Temple. The community at Qumran rejected the

Temple as corrupt, also.55 In the midst of Jesus’ dealings with the Temple, a greater purpose

arises—his prophetic mission. C. S. Mann remarks, “The most probable explanation lies in the

manner of the prophets, [that is,] the prophetic symbolic gesture. From all the evidence we have,

the prophetic type is the one which most easily describes the ministry of Jesus, especially in

words but often in action.”56 Jesus quotes from multiple prophets in his rebuke of the Temple,

revealing the strong prophetic nature of his intent and purpose. Moreover, “in the line of Davidic

kings, undertaking cleansing purifications of the temple when needed (cf. 2 Chron 29–31; 34–

35), there were some who expected the Messiah to perform a sanctifying cleansing of the

temple.”57 Despite the previous remark that a literal cleansing did not occur, it does not reject the

possibility of a symbolic and prophetic cleansing of the Temple. Ecclesiologically, Jesus’ death




55 Ibid., 321.

56 C. S. Mann, Mark, The Anchor Bible, vol. 27, edited by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986), 446.


Adams 12

and the pouring out of his blood served as a ritual sacrifice for the cleansing of his Temple—the

body of believers. Thus, the Temple act served as a prophetic demonstration for the ultimate

Temple cleansing.

As one reflects on the research and insight presented on the Temple act as a historic and

prophetic event, the question arises as to how one might apply such insight to his or her various

milieu. As a socioeconomic event, the Temple act admonishes those who attempt to benefit from

the weakness of others and then seek refuge under a sacred or religious establishment. In a world

system that values power and manipulation, Jesus cries out for justice and righteousness from

and for his people. The Gospel accounts call for a political and religious reform in which the

basis of rule and government is not self-aggrandizement but Truth, Justice, and Holiness.

Ultimately, the people of God in the past, present, and future are called to unity and obedience to

God and God alone. Such loyalty results in the restoration and fullness of the true Temple of

God, Christ dwelling with his people.

In conclusion, the Temple act represents one of the most complex yet insightful texts in

the Gospels. All four Gospel accounts portray Jesus as the Son of God coming to proclaim

judgment on the Temple establishment, driving out those who seek refuge for their sin, and

welcoming the sick, the poor, and the outcast to the one true Temple—the Father made known in

Jesus himself, the one who tends and heals yet also rebukes and admonishes. By surveying the

text’s social, political, economic, and religious background across the Gospels, one discovers the

inner workings of the 1st century world and can better approach the Temple act from an informed

perspective. The applications of such a text on contemporary culture are invaluable and

innumerable. Although one may never fully grasp the meaning, scope, or impact of the Temple

Adams 13

act, he or she can gain from it insight and inspiration to make a stand for truth and justice in the

face of opposition and persecution and thus perpetuate its sacred memory.

Appendix A

Adams 14

Christ Driving the Money-changers from the Temple (1624/25) by Rembrandt.

Oil on panel; 43 x 33 cm; Pushkin Museum, Moscow.

Bibliography

Ådna, J. “Temple Act.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed., edited by Joel B. Green,

947-52. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013.

Albright, William Foxwell, and C. S. Mann. Matthew. The Anchor Bible, vol. 26, edited by

William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,

1971.

Bilkes, Gerald M. “Money-changer.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4,

edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 137-38. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2009.

Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002.

Boring, M. Eugene. “The Gospel of Matthew.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, edited by

Leander E. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995.

Brown, Raymond E., S.S. John I–XII. The Anchor Bible, vol. 29, edited by William Foxwell

Albright and David Noel Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966.

Craddock, Fred B. “Luke.” In The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, edited by James L. Mays.

New York: HarperCollins, 2000.

Culpepper, R. Alan. “The Gospel of Luke.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, edited by

Leander E. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995.

Davies, G. Henton, and J. E. Morgan-Wynne. The Last Seven Days: The Story of Jesus and Holy

Week. Regent’s Study Guide 7, edited by Paul S. Fiddes. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys,

1999.

Adams 15

Donahue, John R., S.J. “Mark.” In The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, edited by James L.

Mays.


Evans, Craig A. “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” Catholic

Biblical Quarterly 51, no. 2 (April 1, 1989): 237-70.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A., S.J. Luke X–XXIV. The Anchor Bible, vol. 28A, edited by William Foxwell

Albright and David Noel Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986.

Gorman, Frank H. “Sacrifices and Offerings.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,

vol. 5, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 20-32. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2009.

Grabbe, Lester L. An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism: History and Religion of the Jews

in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus. New York: T&T Clark, 2010.

———. Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to

Yavneh. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Hanson, K. C., and Douglas E. Oakman. Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and

Social Conflicts, 2nd ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998.

Horsley, Richard A. Scribes, Visionaries, and the Politics of Second Temple Judea. Louisville,

KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007.

Lundquist, John M. “Temple.” In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, edited by David Noel

Freedman, 1280-84. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

Mann, C. S. Mark. The Anchor Bible, vol. 27, edited by William Foxwell Albright and David

Noel Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986.

O’Day, Gail R. “The Gospel of John.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 9, edited by Leander E.

Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995.

Adams 16

Perkins, Pheme. “The Gospel of Mark.” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8, edited by Leander

E. Keck. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1995.

Powell, Mark Allan. “Matthew.” In The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, edited by James L.

Mays. New York: HarperCollins, 2000.

Roberts, J. J. M. “Temple, Jerusalem.” In The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5,

edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, 494-509. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2009.

Seeley, David. “Jesus’ Temple Act.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55, no. 2 (April 1, 1993): 263-

83.

———. “Jesus’ Temple Act Revisited: A Response to P. M. Casey.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly

62, no. 1 (January 1, 2000): 55-63.

Sheeley, Steven M. “Money-changer.” In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, edited by David

Noel Freedman, 916. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

Skarsaune, Oskar. In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity.

Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Smith, D. Moody. “John.” In The HarperCollins Bible Commentary, edited by James L. Mays.


Stegemann, Wolfgang, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen, eds. The Social Setting of Jesus and

the Gospels. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002.

Storkey, Alan. Jesus and Politics: Confronting the Powers. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2005.

Adams 17

Documents

Dean Adams Final Paper REL 4260 5.4.15