According to Zeichmann 2017, Mark was written after August 29, 71 AD. Despite the fact that it is a recent article and hardly a “commonly used” argument, I read it all and found Zeichmann’s central arguments to be persuasive. His theory is based on what Jesus said about taxes in Mark 12:13–17. He argues that Jesus’ time did not see any coin-based taxation from Galilee to Rome. When taxes were imposed, they were typically collected and paid for with harvest crops, which were also commonly used as currency by Judeans during Jesus’ time (around 30 AD, coins were rarely used for everyday transactions). The temple tax had to be paid in the Tyrian shekels and half shekels, which were more commonly used in Judea during Jesus’ time (Domeris 2015). The Judean economy had not yet been fully monetized, making any monetary collection by the Romans in the southern Levant “an ineffective means of taxation” (Zeichmann, 2017). However, they were also not entirely common. Based on these findings, Zeichmann argues that the tax Mark is referring to in the teaching was enacted in 71 AD, so Mark must have been written after that date.
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0259-94222015000200038
Additionally, there are “loanwords” in Mark. That is, “Latinisms” are words that are transliterated into Greek from another language, in this case Latin. Although I do not have an academic source for this, I believe that some of those words indicate a composition from 70 AD or later. For instance, Mark’s use of the word “Legion” in Mark 5:9 may have been more meaningful to the audience after 70 AD because Roman Legions are now occupying Palestine, similar to how the possessed man is being occupied by the demons. Additionally, the word is transliterated directly from Latin, suggesting that it is not derived from a Jesus-related Aramaic proverb.
Now we come to the issue: all of the evidence points to a date after 70 AD. However, there is no convincing evidence to suggest that the gospel was written before, say, 100 A.D., so scholars use their intuition and question the gospel’s purpose to determine a probable time period. To put it another way, they believe that Mark was written before 80 AD because it fits their model, despite the lack of evidence to support this claim. Mark could have been written as late as 94 AD, for example, if Matthew and Luke were written in 95 AD. It simply needs to have been written before those two. As a result, reducing it too much amounts to guesswork.
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Mark reflects knowledge gained after the fact regarding the Judean-Roman War and its aftermath in a few ways. I’ll list the ones I think stand out the most.
(1.) Details that can be easily removed from an otherwise straightforward exorcism narrative include Jesus casting the demons known as ‘Legion’ into a herd of pigs before they drown in the sea. (As a result, the story’s location, miles from the sea, is resolved geographically.) The presence of Legio X Fretensis, who were identified by their boar emblem, is implied by these particulars. This legion remained in the region after the war and played a crucial role during it. The argument makes use of the analogy that a popular-level book that referred to a demon as “Team 6” and had them transformed into a pack of seals is more likely to have been written after 2011 than it was before.
(2.) Jesus uses spit to treat a blind man. The similar tale of Vespasian treating a blind man may have likely served as an inspiration for this.
(3.) The controversy surrounding Caesar’s coin demonstrates that it was a denarius used in a census. This could be an extension of a more straightforward narrative that did not initially specify the coin’s function. The described circumstance corresponds to the Fiscus Iudaicus, a census tax that specifically targeted Jews following the war. The denarius was uncommon in Judea prior to 70 CE.
(4.) A number of signs that will come before the eschaton are listed in Chapter 13. The first set of signs are vague descriptions of social and environmental disasters. The second set of signs is much more specific. In post-apocalyptic literature, this formatting of eschatological “signs” is fairly typical. For additional examples, see 2 Baruch 70 or 4 Ezra 9 and 13. However, there is a possibility that Mark 13 has included an earlier apocalyptic tract about Caligula’s attempt to install an idol in Jerusalem’s temple, which is thought to have been written between 39 and 40 CE. This point would be irrelevant if this were the case.)
(5.) It is possible to interpret Jesus’ declaration at the beginning of chapter 13 as an appeal to God for permission to destroy a holy place. During war, Romans did this so as not to upset local deities. Even though it is anachronistic to do so when there is no war, it works in a situation where the author is writing after the fact and wants the reader to understand that the destruction was ordered by God.
(6.) Instead of Jesus speaking to his apostles, the parenthetical phrase “let the reader understand” is a comment made by the author of the gospel to his readers. “You know what event, now past, Jesus is prophesying about here,” is basically a wink to the audience.
Even though each of these points is obviously contested, their combined weight is a key part of the argument in favor of post-70 CE authorship.
There is also the issue of the general narrative arc of the gospel, though I am unable to recall which scholars make this point at this time. The book begins with an eschatological message from John the baptizer. However, once Jesus arrives in Jerusalem, the author decides to anchor this eschatology within the realm of definable history, the destruction of the temple during a war, rather than letting it drift out into the undefined future like in 1 Enoch’s book of parables: (a) Jesus’ disruption in the temple is framed by the curse of the fig tree; (b) It is stated in the text that the parable of the vineyard tenants being killed for mistreating the son of the vineyard owner represents condemnation of the temple authorities (12.12; cf. 11.27); (c) Olivet’s prophecy about the son of man and the destruction of the temple d) the repetition of the destruction of the temple and the emergence of the Son of Man during Jesus’ trial. I believe that the author was retrospectively interpreting the war’s outcome as a result of Jesus’ death, similar to Josephus blaming the loss of Herod Agrippa’s army on his execution of John the baptizer. The author continued to focus on the destruction of the temple and associated Jesus’ eschatological message with the moment he is sentenced to death.
Instead of Jesus speaking to his apostles, the parenthetical phrase “let the reader understand” is a comment made by the author of the gospel to his readers. “You know what event, now past, Jesus is prophesying about here,” is basically a wink to the audience.
Other sources: Christopher Zeichmann, ‘The Date of Mark’s Gospel apart from the Temple and Rumors of War’, Zeichmann’s 71 A.D August 29 dating, and more
Zeichmann’s thesis
The fact that I now support Semiticisms as evidence of Markan provenance after initially dismissing the relevance of Latinism may raise suspicions. Although much about Palestine’s languages is still up for debate, it is clear that Aramaic and Hebrew were used primarily within the Levant. This contrasts with the widespread adoption of Latin, which was used wherever Roman officials were present. Additionally, the legal and technical terms and phrases preserved in Mark were not likely to be translated into another language at the time. The relevance of Semiticisms is sometimes dismissed on the grounds that the Jesus tradition was replete with oral and written sources originating from Palestine, which would have naturally entailed the preservation of Semiticisms, even if Mark were composed in Rome,this objection fails to appreciate that neither Matthew nor Luke display much fidelity to Mark’s transliterations aside from the untranslatable words noted above. The only words with no Greek equivalent (אמן, שבת, and אפסח), and (כתנת, נרד, and גמל), words that were already integrated into Greek ( The majority of Mark’s 36 Semiticisms are ignored by Luke, but Matthew more clearly demonstrates the problems with the idea that Aramaic and Hebrew transliterations were kept as a matter of tradition. Matthew frequently omits (as in the parallels to Mark 3:17, 5:41, 6:39, 7:11, 7:34, 9:43, 9:45, 11:21, 14:36), translates into Greek (as in the parallels to Mark 1:13, 4:15, 8:12, 9:5, 10:51), or Hebraicizes Mark’s Aramaic words and phrases (as in the parallel to Mark 15:34).
If Matthew was written in Syrian, the most significant difference between Aramaic and Hebrew on the one hand and Latin on the other is that Latin was the language of the Empire and was spoken and read in all of its provinces, whereas Aramaic and Hebrew were much more geographically specific in their use. Furthermore, a Roman author of Mark would probably not have retained Semiticisms from the oral traditions he drew upon because oral traditions are notoriously insecure methods of preserving wording, let alone across languages. As a result, Aramaic and Hebrew are much more likely than Latin to indicate origin in the Apennine region.
Mark also knows the exact layout of rock-cut tombs in Jerusalem and knows Simon of Cyrene’s sons (Mark 15:21). We may even have archaeological evidence of Simon’s son Alexander on a ossuary in the Kidron Valley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSMKEwYmZr4&t=2190s&ab_channel=BiblicalArchaeology
In his 2015 NTS article, Timothy Wardle also points out that Mark’s criticism of the Jerusalem Temple and depiction of Jesus as the New Temple to replace the Old Temple exhibit sectarian tendencies. He finds parallels between this and other sectarian Jewish criticism of the Temple literature, such as Qumran documents, written in Judea. Wardle suggests the nearby Decapolis as a place of composition because Mark seems to have a lot of Gentiles in his audience. He also says that Rome seems too far away for such a strong critique of the Temple.
https://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/dating-game-vi-was-mark-written-after.html
To summarize a number of arguments:
1). Mark 13:1-2 describes the destruction of the temple with far greater accuracy and specificity than generic discourse on the temple’s fall (contrast, e.g., 1 Kgs 9:8; 1 En. 90.28-30; Josephus J.W. 6.300-309).
2). Mark 13:14 seems to refer to Vespasian, despite occasional arguments for the zealot Eleazar or the Emperor Gaius. The citation of the Danielic vision in Mark 13:14 parallels Josephus citation of Daniel’s prophecy of the temple’s fall in A.J. 10.276.
3). The fact that the various portents enumerated in Mark 13 are prompted by the question in Mark 13:1-2 as to WHEN the temple buildings will fall. In so doing, Mark explicitly encourages the reader to understand everything that follows in light of the temple’s fall.
4). This is a more complex argument that isn’t always easy to articulate. But Mark 14:57-58 and 15:29 slanderously attribute to Jesus the claim that he will destroy the temple and raise it again in three days. What is striking is that the controversy is over Jesus’ role in bringing about the destruction -NOT whether or not the temple will actually fall. This assumes that the temple’s fall was not a matter of controversy in Mark’s context.
5). Another complex argument, but Eric Stewart has written a book arguing that Mark configures Jewish space away from the temple and synagogues and instead onto Jesus. Words that were normally used to describe activity related to those sites (e.g., language of gathering, ritualized activities) are relocated onto Jesus. Stewart contends that this is ultimately language of replacement. Though Stewart does not explicitly connect this with Markan dating, its relevance is obvious.
6). The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mark 12) is an obvious allegory regarding the punishment of Jews for their rejection of Jesus. What is interesting is that the parallel in the Gospel of Thomas 65 (which is much more primitive than Mark’s) omits any reference to punishment. This suggest the allegorization is part of Markan redaction.
7). The cursing of the fig tree links the notion of an unproductive fig tree and its destruction to an unproductive temple and its (eventual) destruction.
8). The tearing of the temple veil upon Jesus’ death assumes some kind of divine causality that portends the entire temple’s eventual destruction.
9). There are a few references that only make sense after the Jewish War. For instance the language of legion in Mark 5:1-20 only works after the War, since before the War the military in Palestine and the Decapolis was not legionary. As an analogy, a story wherein a demon named “Spetsnaz” is exorcized from a Crimean denizen should strike the reader as anachronistic in its politics if depicted as occurring in 2010; one would assume the story had been written after the Russian annexation of Crimea in February 2014, in which the aforementioned special forces were active.
10). I have an article coming out in CBQ’s July issue arguing that the question of taxation (12:13-17) is full of anachronisms that only make sense after 71 CE: no capitation taxes were collected by coin in Judaea before 71, it’s strange that Jesus (a Galilean) is depicted as an authority on Judaean taxes (though Galilee and Judaea were part of the same province starting 44 CE), etc.
11). The Latinisms and translation of Aramaic at least indicate that the gospel itself was written for an audience that was familiar with Greek/Latin and not particularly with Aramaic. Beyond that, there’s the fact that certain sections in Mark (e.g. Mark 10:30) seem to indicate that the Christian church is being persecuted, which we know happened during the mid-late 60s.
The words Mark transliterates are those most commonly found in non-Latin-fluent transliteration: military, monetary, administrative, and measurement terms that were encoded as Roman. Thus, if anything, they indicate that it was probably NOT composed in Rome.
• grabatus = κραβαττος, “mat” (2:4, 2:9, 2:11, 2:12, 6:55) • modius = μοδιον, peck measure or “measuring basket” (4:21) • legio = λεγιων, “legion” (5:9, 5:15; Mark: πολλοί [5:9]) • speculator = σπεκουλατωρα, “military scout” (6:27) • denarius = δηναριον, Roman coin (6:37, 12:15, 14:5) • pugnus = πυγμη, “fist” (7:3; but see Chapter One) • sextarius = ξεστων, quart measure or “measuring cup” (7:4; but see Chapter One) • census = κῆνσος, “capitation tax” (12:14) • Caesar = Καισαρ, “Caesar” (12:14, 12:16, 12:17 [2x]) • quadrans = κοδραντης, Roman coin (12:42; Mark: λεπτὸν δύο) • flagello = φραγελλοω, “to flog” (15:15) • praetorium = πραιτωριον, “governor’s residence” (15:16; Mark: αὐλή) • centurio = κεντυριων, “centurion” (15:39, 15:44, 15:45)
Note that Mark has the greatest density of Hebrew and Aramaic transliterated words among Greek documents, only a handful of which he actually translates.
New argument (Abstract):
The emerging consensus, on the intervention of Jesus into the commercial operations of the Jerusalem Temple, speaks in terms of an enacted parable aimed at the temple hierarchy, against the backdrop of the ongoing economic and social oppression of the time. In this article, I consider four essential scholarly insights (keys): The possibility that Caiaphas introduced trade in sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple; the link between the money changers and Greek-style bankers; the Jewish witness to the extent of high-priestly corruption in the 1st century CE; and finally the presence of the image of Baal-Melkart on the Tyrian Shekel. In the light of the fourth key, in particular, we discover Jesus, like the prophets of old (Jeremiah and Elijah), standing against the greed of the High priests and their abuse of the poor and marginalised, by defending the honour of God, and pronouncing judgement on the temple hierarchy as ‘bandits’ (Jr 7:11) and, like their ancestors, encouragers of ‘Baal worship’ (Jr 7:9).
━━━━
Introduction 📜
According to the four Canonical Gospels, Jesus entered the Jerusalem Temple, at Passover (c. 30-33 CE), and disrupted the commercial activities of the Temple, including driving out buyers and sellers, perhaps animals as well, and scattering the coins of the money changers. The Fourth Gospel places the intervention at the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, while the Synoptic Gospels locate it during his final week, before his crucifixion. Both versions (John and the Synoptics) associate the incident with increased tension between Jesus and the Jewish high-priestly aristocracy (Carson 1991:176). I dedicate this article to Pieter De Villiers in appreciation of his fine work as a New Testament scholar and of our friendship across the years.
Traditionally, the incident has been called ‘The Temple Cleansing’, but that is an interpretation rather than a pure description – so, for this article, I will use the term ‘intervention’ which literally, in the original Latin, means the ‘coming into’. Intervention as a neutral term leaves open the degree of physical force involved, and the actual intention of the primary actor (namely Jesus). Specifically, Jesus disrupted the commercial activities of the Temple, so we may speak of Jesus’ intervention in the commerce of the Jerusalem Temple, without suggesting that his interests were primarily spiritual, commercial or political. Since the event is filled with symbolism, we may add the adjective ‘parabolic’ to infer its parable-like function (Cranfield 1977:356).
━━━━
What scholars are saying 📜
Scholarly discussion of Jesus’ actions in the Temple, from the earliest Christian centuries to the present time, has been markedly rich and varied, starting with the quintessential question of historicity. Sanders (1985:77), representing probably the majority of scholars, considers the event to be a key historical moment in Jesus’ ministry, while Buchanan (1991), one of the minority voices, believes it to be entirely fictional and based on the occupation of the Temple by the Zealots in 66 CE. Black (2009:107) argues that since the incident is found in both John and Mark, it is surely pre-Markan. Recently, Borg and Crossan (2008:52) concluded that ‘the pre-Markan combination of symbolic action as a fulfilment of the prophetic citation from Jeremiah goes back to the historical Jesus himself’, which seems to be a reasonable assumption.
Opinion is even more varied with regard to the interpretation of the event. Malina and Rohrbaugh (1998:73) notice that: ‘Scholars have been unable to decide whether this incident represents an attempt at reforming the temple (often called the “cleansing”), or a prophetic action symbolizing the temple’s destruction.’ Such actions may be linked to preparations for the coming Kingdom of God (Hiers 1971). Herzog (1992), in a very useful analysis of the event, divides modern academic opinion into four categories, each one arguing that the event was primarily religious, messianic, prophetic or political in orientation. By religious, Herzog means an event intended to ‘cleanse the temple of impurities, whether commercial or sacerdotal’; by messianic, to ‘include the Gentiles in the scope of the Temple’s activities’; by prophetic, to ‘announce the destruction of the Temple and its eschatological restoration’; and by political, to ‘disrupt the commercial and sacerdotal activities of the Temple because they had become oppressive and exploitative’ (1992:820; see Tan 1997:169-179). One might debate Herzog’s categories, but his generalisations are useful in illustrating the diversity of opinion around what appears to be a reasonably simple event. Ultimately, even the Gospel writers are drawn into the debate, with each writer setting the event in a framework of their choice.
━━━━
What happened? 📜
Like a mystery novel, the key question is ‘what happened?’ and there is no shortage of answers from the four Gospels. Each Gospel writer encapsulates the temple events in a context of their own devising (McAfee Moss 2008:90, fn. 3) and, through editorial comments and verses from the Hebrew Bible, they offer their own interpretation of the Jesus event. Common to all four Gospels is the result of Jesus’ actions, namely the division it brings among the witnesses to the event and the ultimate consequences for Jesus. For the sake of this article, I will focus on the Gospels of Mark and John representing two different traditions, yet a common source.
━━━━
Mark’s account 📜
Mark has Jesus’ triumphal entry (Mk 11:1-10), followed by his first visit to the temple, when he looks around ‘at everything’ and because it is late in the day, returns with his disciples to Bethany (v. 11). The Gospel of Mark thus separates the account of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem from his temple intervention. Mark dates the entry to the first day of the week. On that occasion, Jesus visits the temple but takes no action (Mk 11:11). The next day, on the way to the temple, Jesus curses a fig tree (vv. 12-14), before re-entering the temple. Jesus takes action (v. 15) including casting out those that sold and those who bought in the temple, and overthrowing (κατέστρεψε) the tables (τάς τράπεζας) of the money changers (των κολλυβιστών) and the seats of those who sold doves. Mark, alone, has the detail (v. 16) that Jesus would allow no one to carry a vessel through the temple which may be a reference to the Mishnaic regulation about taking shortcuts through the temple (m. Ber 9.5 and cf. Cranfield 1977:358), and which Herzog translates into an apparent desire on behalf of the Markan Jesus to restore the holiness of the place (1992:818).
Jesus, following Mark 11:17, cites two prophetic oracles: from Isaiah, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer’ (see Lk 19:46 and Mt 21:13) with only Mark, including the words ‘for all the nations’ (Is 56:7) (Lambrecht 2013); and from Jeremiah, ‘But you have made it a bandits’ (ληστών) cave (σπήλαιον)’ (Jr 7:11). The Hebrew term found in Jeremiah (7:11) and Ezekiel (7:22) occurs some five times in the Hebrew Bible and in each case conveys the idea of violence (Domeris 1997). The LXX (cf. Jr 7:11) uses ληστών, a term also used by Josephus (War 2:13:1-3) in reference to the Jewish revolutionaries of his day (Horsley 1987:37). In the New Testament, it is found in the crucifixion scene (e.g. Mk 15:27). Horsley (1987:37) suggests that the term should be understood as ‘social bandits’ rather than simply ‘bandits’ or the traditional ‘robbers’. However, the Jewish context of foreign occupation indicates that the meaning of a revolutionary or rebel should be kept in mind.
In response to the words of Jesus, Mark notes that the chief priests and scribes plot to destroy Jesus, but they also fear him, because the crowds are attentive to his teaching (v. 18). The next day, the disciples notice that the fig tree has withered, and when Peter draws Jesus’ attention to this fact (v. 21), Jesus is prompted to speak about faith (vv. 22-24) and forgiveness (vv. 25-26). With a clear sense of irony, Jesus refers (v. 23) to ‘this mountain being cast into the sea’ (Waetjen 1989:185). Finally, the chief priests, scribes and elders ask Jesus (vv. 27-28) on whose authority he has done these things (presumably referring to the temple incident). In his defence, Jesus poses a counterquestion about whether the baptismal ministry of John was divinely inspired or of human origin (vv. 29-30), leaving his opponents stumped for an answer (v. 31). Their refusal to express an opinion allows Jesus, in return, to be silent on the issue of his own authority (v. 33). Following a further parable (Mk 12:1-11) with signs of a divided audience and growing enmity (Mk 12:12), Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees and Herodians, with a question about taxation (Mk 12:13-17), which, I suggest, is more intimately related to the overturning of the banker’s tables, than sometimes appears at first sight. The pericope ends with Jesus’ words: ‘Give to Caesar the things which belong to Caesar! Give to God those things which belong to God!’ (Mk 12:17). A strong sense of insider-outsider conflict pervades all these verses and this is typical of all four Gospels and John, in particular (Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998:238-240).
━━━━
John’s account 📜
In typical Jewish fashion, John speaks about going up to Jerusalem (Jn 2:13). Jesus enters the temple and, according to verse 14, finds there sellers of oxen, sheep and doves, and the seated changers of money (κερματιστάς). Like Mark (11:11), John may be suggesting that there may be something unusual about the presence of some of these merchants, in line perhaps with the thinking of Eppstein (1964), namely, that their presence has to do with a recent innovation of Caiaphas, and was not the norm.
Verse 15 brings a note of anger into the equation as Jesus makes a ‘scourge of cords’ (φραγέλλιον έκ σχοινίων). John alone mentions the casting out of animals; for the Synoptic Gospels, it was ‘those buying and selling’ (Mk 11:15; Mt 21:12) or ‘the merchants’ (Lk 19:45). John speaks of Jesus telling those selling doves to leave (in Mk 11:15 and Mt 21:12 they were unseated).
John records (2:15) that Jesus ‘poured out (ξέχεε) the change (τό κέρμα – literally ‘clippings’ – a hapax legomenon) of the money changers (τών κολλυβιστών) and overthrew their tables’ (τάς τράπεζας άνέστρεψε). John uses two terms τούς κερματιστάς (in 2:14) and των κολλυβιστών (in 2:16) while the Synoptics (Mt 21:12 and Mk 11:15) use(s) – των κολλυβιστών. In addition, Matthew contributes a third term (Mt 25:27 – τοις τραπεζίταις) which may be rendered as banker (from table). Sperber (2013) suggests that each of these terms refers to a different aspect of the role of temple merchants, namely giving change (κερματιστάς – literally small cuttings), changing foreign currency (κολλυβιστών) and banking (τραπεζίταις – for a table).
Instead of driving out the sellers of doves, as in Mark, Jesus orders these merchants to leave (v. 16) with the command: ‘Do not make my Father’s house into a house of merchandise’ (οίκον εμπορίου – an emporium or place of merchandise), perhaps an allusion to Zechariah (14:21; see Catchpole 1984). John ends the intervention (v. 17) with the disciples remembering a prophetic word (Ps 69:9) and posing a question about his authority (What sign? v. 18), which leads Jesus to prophesy the destruction of ‘this temple’ (vv. 19-22).
John juxtaposes the disciples, and their post-resurrection response (v. 22), with the Jewish leaders’ literal understanding (v. 20) – one of several instances of Johannine irony (Duke 1985). An editorial note connects the statement with the body of Jesus (v. 21; see Carson 1991:175-180) related perhaps to the Johannine notion of Jesus replacing the temple (Carson 1991:180-183). John uses simply ‘the Jews’ or better ‘the Judeans’ as the protagonists of Jesus at the temple, which is in line with the developing antagonism found in the Fourth Gospel. In their interpretation of the Temple events, Malina and Rohrbaugh refer to the model of antisociety (1998:74) drawn from sociolinguistics (cf. Halliday & Mathiessen 2004). Elsewhere Malina and Rohrbaugh (1998:238-239) refer to the marked rift between insiders and outsiders found extensively in John’s Gospel. Such intention to cause division, in the intended audience, is common to the earlier prophetic literature (Stulman 1995) and often exacerbated by the use of irony (Sharp 2009).
━━━━
The big picture 📜
The primary task of the money changers was changing coins into Tyrian Tetradrachms (shekel) or drachms (half shekel). Jewish law (m. Megil 29a-b) mandated the annual offering (beginning in the month of Adar, the month before Passover) of a half shekel per adult Jewish man dating back to earlier centuries (m. Sheq 1:3). The Mishna makes provision for between 4% – 8% to be charged on half shekels (m. Sheq 1:6). Should the payer pay for two people (with a full shekel), no surcharge was charged (m. Sheq 1:7). In one of the caches of coins discovered, the value of the Roman coins, in denarii, equals 8% of the 1000 half shekels found, and excluding the 3400 full shekels (Kadman 1962). There was a clear preference for the more valuable denarii of Augustus over the inflated denarii of Nero (Kadman 1962). In Neusner’s (1989:287-290), discussion of the money changers he points out that the money was intended for the daily whole offerings, which served as the expiation for the sins of Israel, following Exodus 30:16 (t. Shek 1:6). The coins appear to have been used in Jerusalem from about 126 BCE to about 66 CE (Authority 2008). Neither the surcharge nor the exchange appears to be problematic -raising again the question of Jesus’ intervention in the temple.
Horsley (1987) sees the action of Jesus as an attack on the political and economic interests which coalesced in the Jerusalem Temple. He sums up the situation as follows:
Jesus was attacking not the things peripheral to the system, but integral parts of it. Moreover, these activities that were operated and controlled by the aristocratic priestly families must have been points at which the domination and exploitation of the people was most obvious. (p. 300)
Herzog speaks of the ‘exploitative and oppressive domination of the people through taxation and tribute’ which ‘represent the real social-banditry of the time, even though it was marked as piety and religious obligation’ (Goodman 1987; Herzog 1992:820; Tan 1997; Waetjen 1989).
Borg and Crossan (2008) list three problems, which we may describe as spectral shadows in the background to the temple event, namely ‘political oppression, economic exploitation and religious legitimation’ (2008: 7-8). They point out that the temple was the epicentre of ‘both a local and an imperial tax system’ together with a system of tithes, not forgetting the annual temple tax of half a shekel (Borg & Crossan 2008:18). To complicate matters further as the economic centre ‘of the domination system, records of debts were stored in the temple’ (Borg & Crossan 2008:18).
Evans (2013) adds a further consideration:
What many moderns may not know is that the provincial tribute tax was collected and housed in the treasury building on the Temple Mount. The peaceful collection of this tax was one of the primary responsibilities of the high priest and his high-ranking priestly associates. (p. 105)
Since both Roman and Priestly taxes were stored in the temple, the traditional symbolic meaning of the temple was undoubtedly in jeopardy. The emerging consensus has the temple hierarchy, together with their employees constituting what Malina and Rohrbaugh call ‘the center of a redistributive economy in which the economic surplus was effectively drained from the rural areas’ (1998:74). The temple also had symbolic value as the ‘control center for the deity’s dealings with the world’ (m. Kelim 1:6-9; see Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998:78).
Taking the action of Jesus in its parabolic form reminds us of some of the deeds of the ancient prophets (see Mt 21:10-11), including Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Elijah and Elisha sagas. Jesus is seen to quote from Jeremiah (7:11), and Isaiah (56:7), and there are possible allusions to Zechariah (14:21; see Catchpole 1984) and perhaps even Malachi (3:1-5). The use of irony and the indications of shame and honour and insider and outsider tensions (Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998:74-75) are all reminiscent of the prophetic writings making appropriate descriptions like ‘prophetic symbolism’ (Borg & Crossan 2008:47-48), or in the words of Cranfield, ‘a parabolic action’ (1977:356).
━━━━
Four essential pieces of the puzzle 📜
Over the last five decades, there have been four notable articles written on the temple intervention. Each, in their own way, has offered new answers, and in so doing, has created new and important questions. Without these four articles, the study of Jesus in the temple would be infinitely poorer. However, each insight needs to be tested in the light of the emerging consensus of Jesus’ parabolic action, set against the social and political oppression of the time.
Victor Eppstein and the temple markets:
Eppstein (1964) considered the presence of animals for sale on the temple mount (as mentioned in Jn 2:15), excluding doves (m. Kirtut 1:7), as an innovation of Caiaphas. In reaction to the Pharisaic control of the main markets located on the Mount of Olives, Caiaphas decided to open a rival market on the temple mount itself. In Eppstein’s opinion, Caiaphas had his own commercial interests in mind. Jesus, finding these innovations in place, perhaps for the first time, then reacted on the spur of the moment. The theory has recently received significant, if qualified support (Betz 1997:461-462, 467-469; Chilton 1994:172-176; Evans 2013:429-432; Klawans 2006:232-232; Murphy-O’Connor 2012:64).
Taking another view of the presence of traders in the temple grounds, A.Y. Collins (2001) suggests that Jesus was objecting to the transformation of the temple area into a Roman-style agora by Herod’s renovations. The enormous size of the temple courtyards, as one of Herod’s innovations, probably lent itself to various priestly innovations, not all of them in the interests of the ordinary worshipper. Once such a spacious area was available for use, one could imagine an enterprising mind like that of Caiaphas, seeing its commercial potential.
Neill Hamilton and the function of banking in the temple:
Hamilton (1964), in his important article, revealed for the first time the extent of the commercial interests of the Jerusalem temple. Using references drawn from a wide array of Jewish sources, he painted a clear picture of the various ways in which the temple functioned as a bank (1964:366-369), including the granting of loans (1964:369). He then turned to a consideration of Jesus’ action in the temple (1964:370), and concluded that by his actions, Jesus suspended the commercial operations of the temple and thereby proclaimed himself king (1964:371). Why did he act in this way? Hamilton considered that Zechariah 14:21 may lie behind the Gospel accounts. Jesus was preparing for the coming reign of God (1964:372). He concludes:
The death of Jesus of Nazareth had little to do with messianic claims or lack of messianic recognition. It was pure tragedy. An eschatological prophet acting under the obligations of his message came into collision with civil authorities who also had their obligations. (p. 372)
Hamilton’s research has engendered considerable interest in the banking side of the temple business (Davies 2001; Evans 1989; Oakman 2012; Perrin 2010; Tan 1997). The use of temples as banks, and the banking terms used, has a rich Hellenistic background (Amemiya 2007:102-106; Davies 2001; Schaper 1995). The original sources are most informative: Josephus, for example, tells us that the temple of Jerusalem was extremely wealthy (e.g. JW 5.5.6; 5.5.4 and Ant 15.11.3) and with its copious storerooms the temple held a significant amount of private valuables – housed there for safe keeping (JW 5.5.6; 5.5.4; 7:5:5; Ant 15.11.13; see also 2 Macc 3:4-6, 10-15; 4 Macc 4:1-3, 7); and for loans (m. Shek 4.3).
The widows of the High Priests were beneficiaries of extremely generous pensions paid right out of the Temple treasury (b. Ketub 65a; 66b; Lam Rab 1:50-51[on 1:16]; b. Git 56a) (Evans 1989:524; see also Oakman 2012:92-93, 104; Perrin 2010:80-109; Tan 1997:169-174).
In addition, the temple or some adjacent storage facility housed the records of debts (Josephus, War 2:17:6) – an undoubted thorn in the side of many Galileans, Samaritans and Judeans.
Oakman underlines the negative consequences of policies of monetisation and marketisation generally on the peasants of Galilee and Judaea (Oakman 2012:39, 84-91). Categorically, he claims ‘ancient banking served elite interests and ordinarily had more to do with tax payments, money exchange and commercial transactions’ and adds, ‘Mark 11:15 is consistent with this picture’ (Oakman 2012:87).
He concludes:
Given Jesus’ concerns for Passover and the bankers’ tables as symbols of commerce and agrarian debt, the temple episode expresses a pointed protest against the temple as an institution of agrarian exploitation and crass commercial enterprise. (p. 104; see Bauckham 1988:88; Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998:78-79)
Consequently, the temple as institution could not yield the fruit that was expected from it in and out of season; hence the parabolic action of cursing the unproductive fig tree (Mk 11:13-14).
Craig Evans and the high-priestly corruption:
Craig Evans’ work on the temple intervention took the form of a paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) and published in the collection of selected papers from that congress (Evans 1989). Evans gathered together a significant number of Jewish sources to show that the high-priestly aristocracy were widely perceived to be both extremely wealthy and corrupt. Most striking of all was his exposure of the so-called ‘woes’ against the high-priestly families of the 1st century CE (t. Menah 13.21; Evans 1989:525-527). In this way, Evans offered ample grounds for Jesus’ actions in the Jerusalem temple. Jesus was, like the prophets of old, standing firmly on the justice of God and challenging what he believed to be the injustices of the time (1989:535-539).
In the years which followed, Evans has continued to add to our understanding of the high-priestly aristocracy (Evans 2013; Evans & Wright 2009 to mention just a few of the articles and books). Recently (2013:531), he concluded that ‘greed, nepotism, oppression, and violence according to the rabbis characterised the high-priestly families (Sipre Deut 105 [on 14:22] y. Pe’a 2:16).’ He added that the wealth of the high priests was legendary: ‘Incredible sums were paid as dowries (b. Ketub 66b) and allowances for perfumes and jewellery (b. Yoma 39b; m. Kelim 12.7; m. Sab 6.5)’ (Evans 2013:531; see also Josephus (Ant 20.8.8 & 20.9.2). In similar vein, Perrin (2010:80-109) compares the rabbinic reasons for the fall of the first temple (‘idolatry, licentiousness, and bloodshed’ [t. Menah 13:22B]), with their suggested reasons for the fall of the second temple (‘because they loved money and hated one another’ [t. Menah 13:22D]). The general picture of priestly oppression, described here, is borne out by other scholars (Goodman 1987; Oakman 2012; Perrin 2010).
Peter Richardson and the imagery of the Tyrian Shekel:
Richardson’s original contribution, like that of Evans, was in the form of a paper presented at the North American Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) congress (Richardson 1992). The paper was subsequently republished as a chapter in an edited collection of his work (Richardson 2004). Richardson begins with an incident in the temple, which happened in 4 CE, where the students of two Pharisaic teachers attempted to remove the Roman eagle at the entrance to the Temple (2004:241-242). With reference to the Tyrian shekel, he describes its idolatrous imagery and takes note of its high silver content and compares the coin with the coins minted during the Jewish Revolt (66-70 CE), with their more orthodox images (2004:247). He comments on Jesus’ use of Jeremiah 7:11 and refers, in passing, to the mention of Baal, in the same sermon (Jr 7:9; 2004:249). He argues that the temple tax was a comparatively recent piece of legislation, without clear Torah support, which included two new innovations. The first innovation was the use of the Tyrian coin, chosen for its silver content. The second innovation was the frequency of the payment. This met with resistance from the Qumran community, who argued that it should only be paid once in a person’s lifetime (4Q159). Richardson adds that both innovations ‘could be thought to be relatively recent and both equally unacceptable’ to Jesus and some other Jews (2004:248).
Richardson concludes (2004:250-252), on the basis of Matthew (17:24-27) and Mark (12:13-17), that Jesus was opposed, not to the tax itself, but to the particular coins used to pay the half shekel tax and viewed them as idolatrous (2004:250). To use such coins was like making an offering to a pagan god in the Temple of Yahweh. Jesus did not want the tax abolished or replaced (as Tan 1997 would later argue) nor was he concerned about temple purity, rather he was motivated by ‘a reformer’s anger at recognition of other gods’ (Richardson 2004:251).
Richardson’s article served, quite correctly, to draw attention to the temple shekel. Several discoveries of quantities of Tyrian shekels (including half and quarter) have been found, in 1960 on Mount Carmel (Kadman 1962); at Qumran (Magness 2002:188-193, 206-207); from an unknown site in 2008 (Marian & Sermarini 2013); Gamla and Silwan (Richardson 2004:243) and from a Jerusalem excavation conducted by Ronnie Reich and Eli Shukron near the City of David (Authority 2008). The sheer volume of buried coins in different locations, suggests that these were hidden during the Jewish Revolt (66-70 CE). All of the images for the Tyrian shekel (regardless of size) are the same.
The description is as follows:
The shekel that was found in the excavation weighs 13 grams, bears the head of Melqrt, the chief deity of the city of Tyre on the obverse (equivalent to the Semitic god Baal) and an eagle upon a ship’s prow on the reverse (Authority 2008:n.p.), or put differently, with a winged imperial Ptolemaic eagle (Marian & Sermarini 2013).
Richardson’s thesis has received a literal barrage of negative comment, in particular from Chilton (1994), followed by Klawans (2006). In essence, they argue that there is no evidence for the idea that Jesus critiqued idol worship, especially in the discourses which follow the temple incident; that the Tyrian coins were considered by 1st century Judaism as ‘tolerated imagery’ (noting the presence of Tyrian shekels at Qumran) and conclude that the coins were, ultimately, more acceptable than the Roman coins with the images of the Caesar (Chilton 1994:172-176; Klawans 2006:231-232). Where Richardson based his case on the literal evidence of the Tyrian coins, his critics bring forward no evidence, other than the silence of the texts (New Testament, Mishnaic or Talmudic). Further criticism stems from Gray (2010:27), who argues that Richardson has set his case on speculation about the agenda of the historical Jesus, rather than the plot of Mark and that he ignores the rest of the temple actions, including the driving out of the buyers and sellers.
Apart from the imagery on the shekel, other New Testament scholars have drawn attention to problems surrounding the collection of the tax (cf. Mt 17:24-27). Horsley, writing on Jewish and Roman tax (1987:279-284), comments on the half shekel tax as ‘controversial in Jesus’ time’ referring to Josephus (JW 6.335 and Antiq 18.312) and Philo (Spec Leg 1:77-78) (1987:280). Tan (1997:174-179) has argued that Jesus was against the temple tax in principle, and wanted to see it abolished. Murphy-O’Connor discusses the possible alternatives open to the Jewish hierarchy, like the Roman coins from Antioch, Caesarea, Gaza or Ashkelon. Such coins, however, were the coins of an occupying power and were used to pay Roman taxes. He argues that ‘it would be symbolically inappropriate to use such coinage in the temple and in particular to pay for the national sacrifice’ (Murphy-O’Connor 2012:63). In addition, in favour of these Tyrian coins, there was their high silver content, the consistent quality and the fact that Tyre was an autonomous mint. These economic and political factors, Murphy-O’Connor believes, in the eyes of the Jewish authorities outweighed the problem with the imagery on the coins and the superscription ‘Tyre the holy and the inviolate’ (2012:63). For the pious Jews, who had no option in the matter, this would have been a problem. He concludes that ‘Jesus did what at least some Jews in the 1st century would have wanted to do’ (2012:63). Such a conclusion, by an eminent scholar, leads me to suggest that we need to investigate the issue of the Tyrian shekel more closely.
━━━━
Revisiting the Tyrian shekel 📜
(There are three key questions which need careful consideration. What did the Jews of the 1st century think about coins with human imagery? Does the teaching of Jesus contain allusions to idol worship? Does the idea of Jesus reacting to idol worship (specifically the worship of Baal) fit into the overall plot of Mark’s Gospel?)
The Jewish view of coins with human imagery:
The first criticism aimed at Richardson’s thesis (1992) argues that the Jews of Jesus’ time would have accepted the Tyrian shekel as ‘tolerated imagery’ (Chilton 1994:172-176; Klawans 2006:231-232). This comment does not square with the evidence of history. In almost every instance of the issuing of coins by Jewish authorities, from the time of the Hasmoneans, through to Herod Antipas and beyond, including the revolt of 66-70 CE, followed by the Bar-Kochba revolt, the imagery on the coins deliberately avoids living creatures, preferring on the whole floral motifs, or images of the temple. This is in strict observance of the ban on creating the images of any living thing in Exodus (20:1-6). One exception to the rule is the coins of Philip, Herod’s son. In commenting on the difference between the two sons of Herod, Jensen writes, that Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee, produced five series of coins issues, ‘none of them has any figural images, showing his respectful observance of the Jewish ban against graven images’ (2012:46). He limited his coins to ‘floral motifs’, palm branches and lulavs. His brother Herod Philip, ‘however, frequently issued coins bearing his own portrait or that of the emperor, as well as other pagan symbols’ (Jensen 2012:46). Clearly, the debate about the imagery on coins was alive and well in 1st century Roman Palestine, and therefore it is unlikely that the temple shekels were not included in the debate.
Jesus and the issue of idolatry:
The second criticism argues that Jesus does not address the issue of idolatry (Chilton 1994:172-176; Klawans 2006: 231-232). Freyne (2014) and Betz (1997) clearly disagree. In Freyne’s discussion of the temple interaction, he focuses on Jesus’ quotation of Jeremiah (7:11) by developing the full argument of that sermon as relevant to the Jesus’ event. In particular, Freyne mentions the implied breaking of the Decalogue (2014:180) and the worship of false gods, found in Jeremiah (7:1-12), but without referring to the imagery on the shekels. In similar vein, Betz (1997) speaks of the temple event as Jesus’ response to ‘commercialism in the Temple area as a form of Romanization and paganization of the Jewish religion’ (1997:469, my emphasis). According to Betz, Jesus presented two different kinds of temple worship so that: ‘A choice had to be made between true worship as prayer and the commercialism now dominating the Temple cult’ (1997:469). Betz then refers to Jesus’ logia on the choice between God and Mammon (Mt 6:24; see Rosner 2007 on greed and idolatry). He concludes, in reference to Jesus’ interaction in the temple, that ‘the true worship of God is set in stark opposition to serving Mammon, the demonic personification of materialism’ (Betz 1997:470). Clearly for both Freyne (2014) and Betz (1997), the temple commerce, in and of itself, carried overtones of idolatry and this was reflected in Jesus’ use of Jeremiah 7.
By quoting Jeremiah 7:11, the Gospel writers would be aware of the context, namely Jeremiah’s own confrontation with the priestly hierarchy, a point cogently made by Borg (2006: 234-236). Jeremiah is given a message by Yahweh, which he is to deliver on the threshold of the temple (Jr 7:2) to those who enter to worship Yahweh. The sermon begins with a call for repentance so that the people might continue to ‘live in this place’ (Jr 7:3). Here as elsewhere, the words of Jeremiah resonate with Jesus’ predictions about the fall of Jerusalem (Mk 13:1-2; cf. Borg 2006:235).
Jeremiah warns against lying words about the Temple of Yahweh (7:4), and calls for people to amend their ways and deeds and to do justice (7:5), not oppressing the sojourner, the fatherless and the widow, nor shedding innocent blood in this place, nor walking after other gods (7:6). Again Jeremiah reiterates the promise – such a life will allow the people of Judah to enjoy this land, given by God (Jr 7:7). He poses a question:
Will you steal, murder and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense to Baal, and walk after other unknown gods (7:9) then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered; that we may do all these abominations? (7:10)
Then come the words spoken by Jesus, ‘Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes?’ and the conclusion ‘Behold, I, even I, have seen it, says Yahweh’ (Jr 7:11). Then follows Jeremiah’s prediction – that the Jerusalem temple would share the fate of the sanctuary at Shiloh (7:12-14) – it would be destroyed. As an aside, we note that Jesus was not the only one to use Jeremiah 7 in relation to the Temple worship, as Jesus ben Ananias did the same (JW 6.300-305 quoted by Evans & Wright 2009:7).
Borg (2006) sums up the meaning of Jesus’ use of Jeremiah 7:11, saying:
Thus when Jesus called the temple ‘a den of robbers’, he was not referring to the activity of the money changers and sellers of sacrificial animals. Rather, he indicted the temple authorities as robbers who collaborated with the robbers at the top of the imperial domination system. (p. 235)
I would add that both temple authorities and the imperial government collaborated to ensure that temple tax was paid in the best quality silver coin available, regardless of the imagery on the coins. Such an action was clearly in the interest of the ruling authorities, and carried obvious negative implications for the Jewish peasantry of Galilee and Judaea.
The shekel in the context of Mark’s Gospel :tm~1: :
I suggest that there are good reasons to connect Jesus’ overturning of the tables and the imagery on the coins with the general plot of Mark’s Gospel. Following closely on Jesus’ intervention in the temple, comes a debate about coins (Mk 12:13-17). With regard to the Roman denarii, Jesus asked ‘Whose image is this?’ and received the expected answer, ‘Caesar’s’. Jesus may well have done the same with the Tyrian shekel, with embarrassing results for the high-priestly aristocracy as hypothetically they answered ‘Baal’. By locating the debate around Caesar’s image close to the temple cleansing, Mark has maintained a sense of the irony in Jesus’ question – ‘Whose image is this?’ (Mk 12:16.)
There is more. The moment of Jesus’ decision to visit Jerusalem and to meet his death takes place, according to Mark (9:2-9) on an unnamed mountain. There Jesus is transfigured and meets with two great heroes of faith Elijah and Moses. The incident is enigmatic and so difficult to interpret. However, in terms of Mark’s plot, one thing is clear – namely, from this point onwards, the stage is set for a confrontation between Jesus and the ruling authorities.
In the light of the Tyrian shekels, the transfiguration has added significance. For Mark’s audience, accustomed as many of them were to paying the temple shekel, the connection would have been absolutely clear. Moses, on Mount Sinai received the Ten Commandments, including the prohibition on the worship of other gods (Ex 20:1-3), and the making of graven images (Ex 20:4-6). Elijah, on another mountain (Mt Carmel – 1 Ki 18:20-40) took on the prophets of Baal and defeated them. Since the Baal, with whom he contended, was in all likelihood the Tyrian Baal introduced by Jezebel (see 1 Ki 16:29-33; see Bronner 1968:8-11), the connection with the Tyrian shekel is even more meaningful. Inspired by the vision of these two great champions of pure Yahwism, Jesus is determined to go to Jerusalem and to take on the establishment – for both its oppression and its failure to give honour to Yahweh alone.
━━━━
Conclusion 📜
Every element of the temple commerce, whether sacrifice, banking or the coins involved, offers some rationale for the actions of Jesus. Taken together, the composition is striking and offers more than enough reason for Jesus to enact his parabolic intervention. In driving out the merchants and bankers, Jesus does what the high priest, in the interests of maintaining holiness, should have done, so there is an implicit irony there – which is mirrored in Jesus’ reference to the House of Prayer (Mk 11:17 quoting Is 56:7). The High Priest has chosen Mammon, instead of God. In his greed, he has chosen silver over obeying the Decalogue, with dire consequences for ordinary peasants. That the payment of the coin is tied to the daily sin offering (Neusner 1989) comes close to religious blackmail.
Because of the threat of potential merging of God and Mammon, in a form of priestly hegemony, we may speak of a sense of dissonance, which, I believe, the actions of Jesus sought to create. The mark of this dissonance was the division between insider and outsider which arose from the implied and explicit irony and the enacted parable which accompanied the spoken words of Jesus. Like the prophets of old, Jesus sought to drive a wedge between the essential symbolism of the temple as the House of God and those who used the temple to further their own commercial interests, to the detriment of the ordinary peasants.
In spilling the idolatrous coins on the ground Jesus does what any righteous Jew should have done (Murphy-O’Connor 2012:63). At this point, Jesus resembles Elijah standing face to face with the prophets of the Tyrian Baal introduced by Jezebel. This is Jesus’ personal Mount Carmel, presaged by the transfiguration perhaps, as he upsets the tables and the unholy coins of the Tyrian Baal-Melkart roll across the dusty floors of the temple. Bearing in mind the Mishnaic rules (m Sheq 7:1) about dropped coins, perhaps some of these coins even ended up in the poor box (Freewill gifts m. Sheq 7:1; cf. Mk 12:41).
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
The Gospel of Mark is typically dated between 40 and 60 CE by conservative Christians, while many scholars push that back to around 66–69 CE. It is believed (by the theologically conservative group) that dating the book anytime after 70 CE harms the credibility of Jesus’ predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem’s temple, which took place in that year. This reasoning was integral to John Robinson’s argument that every New Testament book was written before 70 CE:
One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period — the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple — is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event. (John Robinson, Redating the New Testament, 13.)
Robinson’s argument—that 70 CE is ‘never once mentioned as a past fact’ in any New Testament text—is demonstrably false.
First Peter 5.13 sends greetings from Christians in ‘Babylon’. During the first century, the actual city Babylon was in ruins. One of the chief enemies in the Revelation of John is called ‘Babylon’ and described as ‘the great city’ seated on ‘seven hills’. The seven hills of Rome were famous throughout the empire at the time.2 When the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and its temple in 70 CE, apocalyptic Judeans began referring to the capital city of the empire with the cipher ‘Babylon’. They were equating the two cities because the Babylonians had likewise destroyed Jerusalem and its temple about six centuries earlier. By identifying Rome as ‘Babylon’, both texts necessarily come after 70 CE.3 First Thess 2.13–16 forcefully condemns ‘the Judeans’ who are ‘in Judah’, announcing that ‘God’s wrath has come upon them utterly’. This paragraph may be an interpolation, written by someone looking back on 70 CE as a past demonstration that God had effectively disowned Israel.4 Heb 8.13 may also allude to 70 CE as something of the author’s recent past. There is also a very strong tell in John 11.48–52, where the self-aware irony of the dialogue is palpable.
Robinson’s book didn’t gain much traction among scholars because his argumentation was so flawed. He strained to reject long-accepted ideas about New Testament texts without providing strong enough grounds for his alternate interpretations.
Let’s turn to the Gospel of Mark, and see how the fall of Jerusalem is actually very relevant for determining when the book was written.
━━
THE TEMPLE’S ROLE IN THE NARRATIVE
Jesus’ initial entry into Jerusalem is marked by a crowd expressing their hope that he is the long-awaited messiah (Mark 11.1–10). This is punctuated by him surveying the temple (11.11). Soon after, Jesus enters the temple to flip the money tables over and push out everyone in the courtyard (11.15–19). However, this outburst is nested inside a story of Jesus cursing a fig tree for failing to produce fruit out of season (11.12–14), and the fig tree subsequently dying (11.20–24). This act is widely interpreted as a symbolic prediction of the temple’s destruction.
After a brief exchange with the religious leaders of Jerusalem, Jesus tells them a parable: a master leases his vineyard to tenants, but when the master sends his slaves and his son, the tenants murder them; the only conclusion to this story is for the master to avenge his servants and son by killing all of the tenants (12.1–11). The Gospel narrator tells us directly that the parable was about Jerusalem’s religious leaders (12.12). Jesus was predicting their violent deaths.
After more interactions with the religious leaders and some people in the city, Jesus’ disciples marvel at the temple’s grandeur. In response, Jesus predicts the temple’s total destruction (13.1–2). When the disciples ask Jesus to elaborate on this prediction, asking him when it would occur, he lays out a series of events for them to watch for (13.3–8), including their own persecution (13.9–13). This will be followed by the ‘abomination of desolation’, which will be the signal to escape Judah (13.14–23). When all this has happened, the son of man will come on the clouds and he will gather the elect (13.24–27). All of this, Jesus insists, will take place before that generation has died out (13.28–31).
This leads into the Passover meal in Jerusalem (14.1–31), the arrest at night in the garden (14.32–52), his interrogation by the high priest (14.53–72), his trial before Pilate (15.1–15), and finally his crucifixion (15.16–41), burial (15.42–47), and the empty tomb (16.1–8). Even amid this final sequence of events, the temple’s destruction is foreshadowed again: Jesus is falsely accused of plotting to destroy the temple (14.57–58), and the temple’s curtain spontaneously rips in half the moment Jesus dies (15.37–39).
The temple’s destruction permeates the second half of Mark. This is a deliberate thematic choice of the author. The simplest explanation for this is that the author wrote his book after 70 CE and purposely shaped his material around his knowledge of Jerusalem’s destruction.
━━
‘LET THE READER UNDERSTAND’
In Mark 13.14, Jesus predicts the ‘abomination of desolation’. This item is borrowed from the Book of Daniel, which was written during the Maccabean Revolt in the second century BCE. Daniel predicts a sequence of four kingdoms: Babylon, Media, Persia, then Greece. Originally, the ‘abomination of desolation’ referred to the establishment of an altar to Zeus in Jerusalem’s temple, followed by a sacrifice to the pagan god. This act was ordered by Antiochus Epiphanes, who was considered a king of the fourth kingdom, the Greeks.
However, the Book of Daniel predicted the resurrection of the dead and the elevation of Israel would occur just after Antiochus’ death. After this prediction failed, Dan 7’s original sequence of four kingdoms was reinterpreted to extend the book’s timeline. By the first century CE, the fourth kingdom was widely identified with the Roman Empire.5 The prophecy in Mark 13 is plainly about Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, so for Jesus to invoke the ‘abomination of desolation’ here shows Jesus was in line with his contemporaries in identifying Rome as part of the Book of Daniel’s prophecies.
In writing about Jesus’ prediction, however, the author tips his hand by inserting a parenthetical note: ‘Let the reader understand’. Mark’s author is addressing his audience directly, telling them to identify in Jesus’ words something they are already aware of. While debate rages over what precisely the ‘abomination of desolation’ referred to,6 it is evident the author expected his readers to recognize something they already had knowledge about.7 He is not asking them to understand an abstract idea, but something concrete and historical, something in their past.
━━
SIGNS PRECEDING THE END
Another weighty point is the form of the ‘signs’ in Mark 13.
Jesus outlines these things to demonstrate the increasingly chaotic era that will precede the downfall of Jerusalem and the subsequent appearance of the son of man, yet he breezes through them without much concern for the particulars. He doesn’t say where wars will occur, nor which nations and kingdoms will be involved, nor where earthquakes will happen.
Both 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch ‘predict’ the rise of the Roman Empire before laying out a series of signs that will precede the empire’s imminent defeat by the messiah (which was to take place soon after either book was written).
Because the literary style of Mark 13.5–27 departs so drastically from the rest of the book (and, in fact, never answers the question that prompted it in 13.3–4), some scholars have even theorized the section is from an apocalyptic source unrelated to Jesus.8 Whether Mark has written this material himself, or is incorporating a preexisting source, he invests the ‘signs’ with the same function found in other apocalypses: to claim the world has become worse; society is upside-down, morals are in decay, and violence is prevalent. The mode by which Jesus conveys these signs—flatly listing them out before moving on to the heavier issues of persecution or the conquest of Judah—is at home in the genre of apocalyptic ‘predictions’ written after-the-fact.
━━
EVOCATION OF DEITY
By the first century CE, it was a common and widespread practice for Romans to perform the ritual evocatio when warring upon a city. Unlike the Judean nation, the Romans freely assumed the existence of many deities. When preparing to conquer a city the Romans would carry out the evocatio, summoning the city’s patron god to side with the Romans, thus permitting their conquest (and looting of the city’s holy sites) without risking divine condemnation.
This concept that a city’s destruction meant the people’s god had abandoned them was not unique to Roman culture. The participation of deities in earthly warfare was a universal concept. The Trojan War takes so long partly because the gods were split between supporting the invading Greeks and the defending Trojans. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE was believed to have occurred because God abandoned his temple there (Ezek 10).
Josephus, a Judean who initially fought against the Romans but was then recruited to their side, wrote that the Roman emperor’s son Titus attempted to stop his forces from desecrating Jerusalem’s temple.9 This is so unlikely that it is accepted Josephus invented the story to excuse what actually happened: that Titus, as the general overseeing the siege of Jerusalem, was himself the one who carried out the evocatio and led the Romans in destroying the temple.
To justify the conquest of his people’s capital city and most holy site, Josephus reports that in the few years before the war a series of omens signaled its imminent destruction. One of these omens was the temple’s gates opening themselves and a divine voice announcing his departure.10 Omens preceding a city’s overthrow, and the residents failing to recognize the omens for what they were, was a stock motif in Roman stories of conquest.
Because Jesus speaks with such absolute certainty in Mark 13.1–2 that the temple will be totally and completely destroyed, it conveys the idea that Jesus is aware that God has abandoned Jerusalem (which is stated outright in Matt 23.38; Luke 13.35a), despite how anachronistic it would be forty years in advance. Evocatio, the divine permission of a city’s conquest, is taken as a certainty by Mark’s author.11
━━
GIVE TO CAESAR WHAT IS CAESAR’S
One of the strongest hints at the Gospel’s post-war origin is when Jesus is asked about taxes.
Latinisms—Latin words written in Greek—are abundant in Mark. Two such Latinisms occur in this passage: census (κῆνσος) and denarius (δηνάριον).
The presence of these two specific Latinisms is a red flag.
First, the denarius was extremely rare in the region before 70 CE.12 As a frontier land of the Roman Empire, Judah had been allowed for decades to operate semi-independently as client kingdom. Only one denarius minted before 69 CE has been found in the region, but seventy-five minted between 69 and 135 CE have been found. It cannot be argued that Mark only used the word denarius loosely for just any coin; Jesus’ answer depends on the coin being a denarius because the story specifies it had Caesar’s face on it, and that specific coin was exceptionally rare in Judah prior to the year 70.
Second, the census is recognized as a tax payment. Yet, taxes in Judah before 70 CE rarely took the form of monetary payments. Instead, taxes were usually collected in the form of produce.13 Yet, just as in modern English, the Latin word census referred to a population’s head count. Mark does not identify a payment to Caesar as a tax in any general sense, but as a specific tax based on the number of people.
The only relevant tax that fits these three details—(1) a denarius (2) paid to Caesar (3) for a census tax—was the Fiscus Iudaicus, the ‘Judean Tax’. This tax, per the name, was required only from Judeans throughout the Roman Empire, as a penalty for Judah’s failed revolt against Rome. The Fiscus Iudaicus would have prompted a major theological debate, because it had one express purpose: to take the approximate value of the tax the Judean people normally paid for the Jerusalem temple (one didrachma or one half-shekel)14 and redirect it to fund the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome (two denarii). By paying this tax, Judeans were directly funding idolatry. Could they pay this tax guilt-free, or would they be sinning against God if they paid it? Jesus’ answer alleviates the problem of the census tax: Judeans may pay the tax because they’re simply returning to Caesar his own money.15
The story in Mark 12.13–17 requires a context after 70 CE.
━━
THE DEMON NAMED ‘LEGION’
The final item we’ll look at is when Jesus encounters the Gerasene demoniac.
In no other Gospel story does Jesus ask a demon for its name. Rather than having in mind a generic ‘crowd’ or ‘army’ of demons, the word legio (λεγιὼν) is another Latinism. Mark’s inclusion of this detail points to the name’s importance beyond unnecessary trivia.
There is the additional problem of this story’s setting. Jesus and the disciples have just crossed the Sea of Galilee. Yet, upon exiting the boat, Jesus is ‘immediately’ confronted by a Gerasene man. When Jesus exorcises Legion into a herd of pigs, they run into the Sea of Galilee and drown. The dilemma is that Gerasa was not ‘immediately’ next to the Sea of Galilee. It was about thirty miles away.16
Before the Judean-Roman War, the only forces Rome stationed in the region were auxiliaries.17 When revolt broke out in 66 CE, the Twelfth Legion Fulminata was sent to suppress the revolutionaries. When the conflict only grew worse, General Vespasian arrived in 67 CE with the Tenth Legion Fretensis and the Fifth Legion Macedonica, and he was joined by his son Titus with the Fifteenth Legion Apollinaris. By August of 70 CE they conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. After Jerusalem fell, the Tenth Legion remained in the area to deal with smaller, more isolated battles. The legion used Jerusalem as a base while it maintained Roman power in the region.18 One of the symbols used to represent the Tenth Legion was a boar, which is found on the pottery they made and money they used, as well as their standards.19 The specificity of the name ‘legion’, and its connection to ‘swine’, would be an uncanny coincidence decades prior to 70 CE. This would be comparable to claiming a story in which Jesus sends a demon named ‘Sturmabteilung’ into a flock of black eagles was written in 1910 CE.
It has been suggested some of the verbage used in the exorcism story normally carry military connotations,20 heightening this connection.21 The demons’ request not to be sent ‘out of the country’, followed by their drowning in the sea, may reflect a desire to exile the Tenth Legion from Judah via the Mediterranean Sea,22 or it may reflect a desire for revenge of the Roman drowning of Galilean revolutionaries in the Sea of Galilee.23
While it is possible, even likely, this story of Jesus healing a Gerasene man of demonic possession originated within traditions about Jesus as an exorcist, the story as we have it has been shaped as an anti-Roman response to the outcome of the war, including the Tenth Legion’s continuing presence in the area.24
A few scholars believe Mark’s author used Josephus’ book The Judean War as a resource. Pushing Mark beyond 70 CE—more than four decades after Jesus’ day—has a ripple effect on other books. It demands a later origin for both Matthew and Luke than is traditionally assigned, well into the late 80s or early 90s at the earliest, since they each are dependent on Mark.
The signs of the end in Josephus and Mark
- Josephus (War.6.5.3-4) lists 8 astounding signs sent by God to warn the Jews of their impending disaster:
- 1. A star stood over the city like a sword, and a comet — remaining for a whole year. (Matthew, we know, also likes the idea of a star hanging over a particular spot on earth.) 2. At a Feast of Unleavened Bread, at 3 am, a bright light, as bright as midday, appeared around the altar and sanctuary, lasting for an hour. 3. During the same feast a cow brought for sacrifice gave birth to a lamb in the middle of the Temple courts. 4. At midnight the East Gate of the Inner Sanctuary opened of its own accord. This solid bronze gate normally required 20 men to shut it, and it was fastened with iron bars secured by bolts. 5. Shortly after the feast, before sunset, there appeared in the sky over the entire country chariots and regiments of soldiers racing through the clouds and surrounding the towns. 6. At Pentecost the priests (who were performing the normal Inner Temple ritual at night) heard a violent movement and loud crash, then a loud cry of many voices: “Let us go hence!” 7. Four years before Jerusalem’s war with Rome, Jesus the son of Ananias proclaimed doom for the city — especially at the feasts, and from the Temple. He spoke as one possessed for 7 and and a half years, “Woe to Jerusalem”, was beaten by the authorities, and was killed during the siege. 8. A prophecy was found in their scriptures that promised that there would come from their country a king to rule the entire world.
To begin:
Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be one stone left upon another that will not be thrown down.”
Perhaps nothing should be read into Josephus linking the beginning of the tearing down of a tower with the complete end of Jerusalem:
for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, “That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square.”
But let’s continue:
“Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be when all these things are about to come to an end?”
Josephus’s 8 signs passage is preceded by a graphic account of the destruction of these buildings by fire. The 8 signs he describes are directly connected to his destruction of the Temple and “the end” of Jerusalem.
Josephus prefaces his 8 signs with the people of Jerusalem being deceived:
A false prophet was the occasion of these people’s destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. Now a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such his deliverance. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.
Mark continues:
Many will come in my name saying, ‘I am he,’ and they will deceive many.
When you hear of wars and reports of wars do not be alarmed; such things must happen, but it will not yet be the end.
Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes from place to place and there will be famines. These are the beginnings of the labor pains.
Mark says that these events are not the sorrows to come but precede them. He continues:
“Watch out for yourselves. They will hand you over to the courts. You will be beaten in synagogues. You will be arraigned before governors and kings because of me, as a witness before them.
Christians who failed to support Bar Kochba as the Messiah were persecuted during that period, but Josephus singles out a Jesus who, as one of the signs of the impending end of the Temple and Jerusalem, suffered some specific elements of this persecution:
However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; . . . . Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped** till his bones were laid bare; . . . .
Mark does not just warn of persecution but pays attention to what to say in a situation like the one above:
When they lead you away and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say. But say whatever will be given to you at that hour. For it will not be you who are speaking but the holy Spirit.
Compare the unabridged version of the Josephan passage above:
However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!”
Josephus says it was apparent that it was not the man Jesus here who was speaking but “a sort of divine fury” in him. He did not have anything to say to his persecutors other than what was prompted by this “divine fury”. Compare also Mark 13:9 above where Jesus says their words would be “a witness against them”. The Jesus son of Ananias words, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” are nothing if not a witness against his persecutors.
Mark 13:12
Mark has taken this from Micah 7:6
For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.
Detering makes a strong case that Mark’s “desolating abomination” was the construction of Hadrian’s Temple to Jupiter on the site of the original Jerusalem Temple:
“When you see the desolating abomination standing where he should not (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains
Josephus speaks throughout of the tragedy of his fellow Jews fleeing INTO the city for protection, and once there, being prevented from leaving, either by force or by persuasion of false prophets.
And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy.
Many have taken that as the abomination of desolation Mark had in mind. Perhaps so, without any denial of Detering’s view of the later event being the more immediate event.
Much has been written of Mark’s ignorance of Galilean geography. Did he know Jerusalem and Judea any better? His account of Jesus’ single handedly stopping the sacrifices in the Temple and evicting the traders certainly suggests he envisages a relatively small (Roman?) temple — certainly one much smaller than was the Jerusalem structure. But he knows about mountains surrounding Jerusalem. Did he also find this detail in the section of Josephus?
And besides, many of those that were worn away by the famine, and their mouths almost closed, when they saw the fire of the holy house, they exerted their utmost strength, and brake out into groans and outcries again: Perea did also return the echo, as well as the mountains round about [the city,] and augmented the force of the entire noise.
Mark warns that the people of Judea must flee or die. Josephus wrote of none fleeing, except into the city, where they died en masse. At one point he even described heavenly armies surrounding the cities of Judea so that none could flee. A gate opened by itself, a chorus of voices shouted “Let us remove hence!” But none fled to the surrounding mountains.
If anyone says to you then, ‘Look, here is the Messiah! Look, there he is!’ do not believe it.
Detering shows this applies most aptly to Bar Kochba. But Mark continues:
False messiahs and false prophets will arise . . . .
Josephus also, like Mark, refers first to a single deceiver or prophet then to multiple deceivers:
A false prophet was the occasion of these people’s destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose on the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes.
Mark said these false prophets would show great signs and wonders that would deceive the many, though the elect would not be misled:
. . . . . and will show [“give, present”] signs and wonders in order to mislead, if that were possible, the elect.
Josephus follows the false prophets with his list of miraculous signs that were “shown” or “given” to the people. They are the eight listed above. Josephus regularly makes a distinction between the many who let themselves be misled by these signs, and “those of understanding”, the elite classes, who are not misled:
Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them.
This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.
This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them.
But when it came to the prophecy of the world ruler to come out of their country, Josephus narrows “the elect” down only a very few — himself included of course — of those normally not deceived:
The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea.
But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction.
Mark then draws on Isaiah for the image of the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem:
“But in those days after that tribulation the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will be falling from the sky, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Isaiah 13:10
For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
The culmination of all these signs is the final appearance of the conquering Messiah to claim his kingdom:
And then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in the clouds’ with great power and glory
Josephus similarly concludes the signs of the end with the appearance in Judea of one to rule the world:
But now . . . . an ambiguous oracle . . . . was also found in their sacred writings, how, about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth. . . . . Now this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed
Leave a Reply