(15685179 - Dead Sea Discoveries) The Use of The Dead Sea Scrolls For Interpreting Jesus's Action in The Temple

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303
brill.com/dsd
The Use of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Interpreting

Jesus’s Action in the Temple
Cecilia Wassen
Uppsala University
cecilia.wassen@teol.uu.se
Abstract
In order to understand Jesus’s violent outburst in the temple, scholars frequently turn
to Jewish texts from the late Second Temple Period, including the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The same texts are used to support contrasting explanations of the event. This paper
evaluates these interpretations and offers an analysis of the key texts on the Jerusalem
temple in the Scrolls. It concludes that the negative attitudes towards the temple that
are reflected in Jesus’s action and some of the sectarian writings from Qumran share
an expectation that the temple would become defiled in the end time. From such an
apocalyptic perspective, it did not matter how the temple priests actually ran their
business, since they were bound to be criticized by those Jews, such as Jesus and the
Qumran sectarians, for whom the final age had arrived.
Keywords
Temple – Jesus – Dead Sea Scrolls – Qumran – Apocalyptic Expectations
1 Introduction
The importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the study of the historical Jesus can-
not be overstated. Although there is no indication that Jesus had any contact
with the members of the Qumran movement these texts are frequently cited
as evidence to provide for the historical context of Jesus’s deeds and words.1
1 For an overview of the relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the study of the historical Jesus,
see Wayne McCready, “The Historical Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Whose Historical
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi 10.1163/15685179-12341405

Downloaded from Brill.com12/19/2018 07:53:01PM by shiliger@hotmail.com
via communal account
The Use of Dead Sea Scrolls for Interpreting Jesus ’ s Action 281
This is a valid approach, since the scrolls provide a window into the Jewish
world with a common apocalyptic outlook shared by Jesus and his disciples
who were Jews—a worldview characterized by the belief that they were living
at the end of the present era, in the last days.2 At the same time, using these
texts for the reconstruction of the beliefs and practices not only of the Qumran
sectarians but also the general Jewish society is complicated, and scholars dif-
fer widely in their assessments. Historical Jesus scholars differ as well in their
use and interpretations of the Dead Sea Scrolls in their research, including
their discussion of the temple incident where the Qumran texts frequently are
cited in the analyses.
All four canonical gospels record Jesus’s violent action in the temple when
he attacked the money changers and the sellers, although John, in contrast
to the Synoptic Gospels, places the event at the beginning of Jesus’s ministry
(Matt 21:12‒13; Mark 11:15‒17; Luke 19:45‒46; John 2:13‒17). The event is con-
sidered historical by the great majority of scholars, even though they differ
considerably in their interpretations of the reasons behind Jesus’s actions.3
Interestingly enough, scholars appeal to the Dead Sea Scrolls in support of
different viewpoints in the debate. In this study I will examine how different
texts from Qumran are used as an interpretive key to Jesus’s action, but also
Jesus, ed. William E. Arnal and Michel R. Desjardins (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University
Press, 1997), 190–211; James C. VanderKam and James Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea
Scrolls: Their Significance For Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity
(San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 330–45. James H. Charlesworth, ed., Jesus and
the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York: Doubleday, 1992). For comparative thematic works, see, e.g.,
Mary L. Coloe and Tom Thatcher, eds., John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of
Discovery and Debate (Atlanta: SBL, 2011); Simon J. Joseph, Jesus, Q, and the Dead Sea Scrolls:
A Judaic Approach to Q (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012); Albert L. A. Hogeterp, Expectations of
the End: A Comparative Traditio-Historical Study of Eschatological, Apocalyptic, and Messianic
Ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2009).
2 My presupposition is that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet in line with the reconstructions
articulated by Ben F. Meyer, The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1979); E. P. Sanders, Jesus
and Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1985); Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews:
A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999); Bart D.
Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1999); and John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 5 vols. (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1994–2016).
3 For a survey of the scholarly opinions on this question, see Klyne R. Snodgrass, “The Temple
Incident,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context
and Coherence, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 429–
80; Jostein Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” in vol. 3 of Handbook for the Study of the Historical
Jesus, ed. Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 2635–75.

282 Wassen
highlight a neglected aspect of common ground between Jesus and the

Qumran sectarians in their apocalyptic imaginations concerning the temple.
2 Jesus’s Action in the Temple and Scholarly Discussions
Given the double attestation of the incident (Mark 11:15‒17; John 2:14‒17),
the coherence with Jesus’s role as a prophet, and a possible embarrassment
over the episode in the church, the historicity of the temple incident is rarely
disputed.4 The meaning of the event is also difficult to understand, which
speaks in favour of authenticity as Adela Collins points out.5 Jesus’s actions
in the temple is a given topic in the list of “key events in the life of the histori-
cal Jesus” in the book by that title, edited by Darell Bock and Robert Webb.6
E. P. Sanders even begins his investigation into the historical Jesus with this
event, referring to it as, “the surest starting point for our investigation.”7
The story as told by Mark entails many details, including that Jesus drove out
both sellers and buyers (of animals) and overturned the tables of the money
changers and the seats of the pigeon sellers; Jesus is also said to have prevented
people from carrying anything through the temple. If we assume Markan prior-
ity (which I do), both Matthew and Luke have shortened Mark’s story. Luke, who
consistently exhibits a high esteem for the temple, only provides a minimum
of details, but includes the words from Isaiah and Jeremiah ascribed to Jesus:
“My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you have made it a den of robbers”
(Luke 19:46).8 The independent presentation of the episode by John is also
4 Among those who reject the historicity of the event is David Seeley who argues that the story
is a literary creation of Mark; David Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act,” CBQ 55/2 (1993): 263–83. Also
George Buchanan traces the origin of the story to the early church; George Wesley Buchanan,
“Symbolic Money-Changers in the Temple,” NTS 37/2 (1991): 280–90. Tobias Hägerland points
out that scholars who reject the criteria of authenticity appear to take an agnostic stance
on the question of historicity of the event; Tobias Hägerland, “The Future of Criteria in
Historical Jesus Research,” JSHJ 13/1 (2015): 43–65 (57‒59).
5 Adela Yarbro Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” in Antiquity and Humanity: Essays on
Ancient Religion and Philosophy: Presented to Hans Dieter Betz on His 70th Birthday (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 45‒61. See also Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 435–39.
6 Darrell L. Bock and Robert L. Webb, eds., Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus:
A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010).
7 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61.
8 The versions in Matthew and Luke display a couple of examples of the minor agreements
between Matthew and Luke against Mark, which scholars who reject the Q hypothesis usu-
ally highlight. In contrast to Mark where the citations of the prophets are presented as a

highly detailed (John 2:13‒22). In this version Jesus attacks the sellers of “cattle,
sheep, and doves” as well as making a weapon, a “whip of chords,” whereby
he drives both sellers and animals out of the temple. A reference to Ps 69:9
is attributed to the disciples, “His disciples remembered that it was written
‘Zeal for your house will consume me’ ” (John 2:17). John explicitly links the
incident to the destruction of the temple, which in turn he explains as a refer-
ence to Jesus’s upcoming death and resurrection:
18 The Jews then said to him, “What sign can you show us for doing this?”
19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up.” 20 The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construc-
tion for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?” 21 But he
was speaking of the temple of his body. (John 2:18‒21)9
In light of Josephus’s accounts and archaeological research on Jerusalem, the

market where the money changers and sellers were conducting their business
has been identified as the Royal Stoa in the southern part of the outer court,
which was completed in 12 BCE as part of Herod’s extension (Ant. 15.411‒416).10
Generally, scholars concur that the incident was a catalyst for Jesus’s eventual
arrest and crucifixion.11 Since the temple guards failed to apprehend Jesus,
many scholars assume that the action undertaken by Jesus must have been
quite limited in scope and that the reports by the evangelists are highly exag-
gerated. As Sanders points out, it would have taken an army to stop the trade.12
Still, it is also an exaggeration to claim that no one would have noticed that
Jesus was overturning tables and attacking people. Klyne Snodgrass, for one,
states that the act was a “bold move, required significant effort, and carried
some risk.”13 He argues that Jesus was not arrested because the authorities
did not dare to do so, given his supporters and the potentially explosive situa-
tion with the extraordinary large crowds. That is why Jesus was later arrested
at night. We can only guess, but it is hard to see how officials would have
question (“Is it not written . . .”), both Matthew and Luke present the quotations as positive
statements (“It is written . . .”). The phrase, “for all the nations” from Isa 56:7 (Mark 11:17)
is missing in both Matthew and Luke.
9 All citations from the Bible are from the New Revised Standard Version.
10 Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” 2640; Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 450–51; Collins,
“Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 58–59.
11 Fredriksen ( Jesus of Nazareth, 232) instead argues that given the masses of people during
Passover, the priests would not have noticed Jesus’s actions.
12 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 69–71.
13 Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 451.

284 Wassen
refrained from interfering with Jesus had they noticed the attack. Perhaps
they were given reports about the incident afterwards. Sanders’s assessment is
reasonable, “It would appear that the action was not substantiated enough to
interfere with the daily routine; for if it had been, he would surely have been
arrested on the spot.”14
The scholarly agreement on the historicity of the event, as well as prefer-
ence for the time frame of the Synoptic Gospels versus John, ceases completely
when it comes to understanding the meaning of Jesus’s actions. Why did Jesus
oppose the money changers and the business people and cause havoc in the
temple, at the very heart of Jewish worship? The main dividing line between
scholarly views rests on how to interpret Jesus’s actions: either primarily as
a symbolic, prophetic act carrying an eschatological message, or mainly as a
protest against one or several aspects of the temple service and/or its priest-
hood. Prominent scholars who represent these polar opposites are Sanders,
who views the event as a symbol for the coming destruction of the temple,
and Craig Evans who argues that Jesus was protesting priestly corruption.15
Some scholars also combine the two motifs. For example, while arguing for
a symbolic interpretation of cleansing and restoration, Ben Meyer also finds
evidence of protest; there was real critique involved in Jesus’s acts (“an intent
to keep the temple hallowed here and now”), but the central message was
eschatological: “Jesus’ act was symbol-charged and signified the imminent
eschaton . . . the temple cleansing signalled the dawn of a new era and a resto-
ration of cult appropriate to it.”16
A crucial issue for the spectrum of interpretations concerns the historicity
of Jesus’s saying at the scene when, according to the Synoptic Gospels, he cites
Isaiah and Jeremiah, thus pronouncing an accusation about robbery (“a den of
robbers”) as a contrast to pure worship (“house of prayer”). To view Mark 11:17
(with or without the reference to “all the nations”) as historical is quite com-
mon among scholars, and with that also the understanding that Jesus opposed
the commercialism or the alleged corruption of the priesthood, as we will
14 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 70.

15 Craig A. Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” in
Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity and Restoration, ed. Bruce D. Chilton and Craig A. Evans
(Leiden: Brill, 1997), 395–439.
16 Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 170. Snodgrass also finds support for the two aspects although
he does not agree that the act was primarily a symbol of destruction; Snodgrass,
“The Temple Incident,” 466. John Dominic Crossan views the act as a symbolic destruc-
tion of the temple, the symbol of “all that was nonegalitarian, patronal, and even oppres-
sive on both the religious and the political level”; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical
Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1991), 360.

see below.17 On this issue I side with Adela Yarbro Collins, who argues that the
sayings of Jesus in Mark 11:17 clearly reflect the interpretations of the evan-
gelists, and it is therefore safer to concentrate on the actions.18 Hence, all we
know is that Jesus acted violently in the temple and, in turn, this action was
interpreted by the evangelists as a protest against corruption (a den of rob-
bers). At the same time, we should not exclude the possibility that the early
interpreters, i.e., the evangelists, would have had some insight into the event.
3 Jesus’s Act as a Protest or a Call for Reform
The common label for this pericope, a “cleansing,” already implies an inter-
pretive framework for Jesus’s act, which corresponds to the traditional under-
standing of the event.19 Since the late nineteenth century it has been common
place to view the trade and money changing at the temple as crass commercial-
ism against which Jesus was reacting violently, by attempting to “cleanse” the
temple from such “defilement.”20 Sanders rightly criticises such a perspective,
17 So, e.g., Barry Smith states, “Jesus’ indignation would have been righteous, moreover,
owing to his belief that moral laxity was at the root of the practices of exchanging money
and selling animals in the temple. It would have been an example of expediency taking
priority over the proper use of the temple for worship.” Barry D Smith, “Objections to the
Authenticity of Mark 11:17 Reconsidered,” WTJ 54/2 (1992): 255–71 (265). Also Ådna argues
that the saying of Jesus is authentic and claims that there is far-reaching agreement in
recent scholarship that the temple act is historical and his temple saying authentic,” see
Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” 2646‒54 (2653‒54) and Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,”
453–62. See also Alexander J. M. Wedderburn, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: A Key or a
Puzzle?” ZNW 97/1 (2006): 1–22. He points to the abuse of the poor by the temple leader-
ship and the wealth of the temple. Still, in his assessment the protest is directed more
against commercialism than corruption. Reed and Crossan argue that the first part of
the saying from Jer 7:11 (“den of robbers”) fits with Jesus’s action but that Isa 56:7 (“My
house . . .”) does not; see John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, Excavating Jesus:
Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001), 262.
18 Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 48. So also Timothy Wardle, The Jerusalem
Temple and Early Christian Identity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 164.
19 Cf. the heading in NRSV: “Jesus Cleanses the Temple.”
20 Regrettably, scholars do not normally explain in what sense the temple has become
“impure” or what Jesus’s “cleansing” would entail, or whether they use the terms meta-
phorically or not. A notable exceptions is Eyal Regev, “Moral Impurity and the Temple
in Early Christianity in Light of Ancient Greek Practice and Qumranic Ideology,” HTR
97/4 (2004): 383–411. For an in depth analysis of various aspects of purity, see Jonathan
Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

286 Wassen
which distinguishes between an external form of worship and inner values,

as anachronistic. These views persist, he claims, in his book from 1985: “Those
who write about Jesus’ desire to return the temple to its ‘original’, ‘true’ pur-
pose, the ‘pure worship’ of God, seem to forget that the principal function of
any temple is to serve as a place for sacrifice, and that sacrifices require the sup-
ply of suitable animals.”21 More recent scholars seldom claim that Jesus would
have protested against the sacrificial cult per se or the selling of animals, which
was necessary, but rather some aspects of it.22
Craig Evans finds wide support for the alleged corruption of the temple
priests in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha that in his view forms the
background for Jesus’s protest against the commercial activities in the tem-
ple precincts.23 Many scholars, such as Klyne Snodgrass and Timothy Wardle,
support his approach.24 The latter argues that Jesus’s actions were a reaction
against the economic abuses in the temple. A slightly different approach is
offered by Hans Dieter Betz, who highlights the connection between the tem-
ple and the Herodians, arguing that Jesus was protesting against the commer-
cialism that had corrupted worship since the time of Herod the Great. Thus,
Jesus was also protesting against Herodian rule.25 Focusing on the architec-
tural layout of the temple, Collins proposes that Jesus instead opposed the
place of the trade in the outer court, in the Royal Stoa. According to her, in the
21 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 63. Cf. Collins’s critique against this perspective; Collins,
“Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 48.
22 Bruce Chilton is an exception; Bruce D. Chilton, The Temple of Jesus: His Sacrificial
Program within a Cultural History of Sacrifice (University Park: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1992).
23 Craig A. Evans, Jesus and His Contemporaries: Comparative Studies (Leiden: Brill, 1995),
319‒80; idem, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 395–439.
24 Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 455–60. He states, “It would be naïve to argue that cor-
ruption was not a factor” (p. 460), although he sees commercialism as a greater moti-
vating factor. Wardle also sees a symbolic enactment of the destruction of the temple,
but this is not the main motivation; Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian
Identity, 177–81.
25 Hans Dieter Betz, “Jesus and the Purity of the Temple (Mark 11:15‒18): A Comparative
Approach,” JBL 116/3 (1997): 469. Although he rejects the idea that Jesus opposed sacri-
ficial worship per se, his conclusion still sounds as though he did, since Jesus is contrast-
ing two forms of Temple worship, i.e., sacrifices and prayer: “A choice had to be made
between true worship as prayer and the commercialism now dominating the Temple”
(469). While making the point that sacrifices cost money and prayer does not, and that
Jesus is contrasting prayer and sacrifices, Betz still holds that Jesus attacks the commer-
cialism, not sacrifices “in principle” (468). Betz also connects Jesus’s view on the temple
with his alleged preference for internal purity over external ritual purity (470).

tradition of the Temple Scroll and Ezekiel the entire temenos was sacred for
Jesus, evinced by his objection to carrying (profane) vessels through the area
(Mark 11:16).26 According to Collins, Jesus also objected to the use of Tyrian
shekels with the image of the god Melqart, which others have proposed before
her.27 A different twist is offered by Eyal Regev, who, drawing on texts from
Qumran, suggests that for Jesus the money symbolised the corrupted wealth of
the temple which was morally defiling.28 In addition, Jonathan Klawans con-
siders the action a protest against collecting money from the poor.29 Although
these explanations that focus on one or two particular aspects are not impos-
sible, they lack support in the texts. Even though Jesus’s acts took place in the
Royal Stoa it does not mean that he necessarily protested against that part of
the temple complex. Similarly, we should be careful not to read too much into
his attacks on the money changers specifically, as if his protest were directed
towards the use of coins per se; or since he was attacking people carrying things
through the temple that he objected to such a practice in principle (would he
have known where they were heading or why they were carrying vessels?).30
The impression given in the earliest account, i.e., that of Mark, is that Jesus
attacked people around him in the market place, both workers and customers,
and that he overturned both tables and chairs in his path. Hence, such a broad
attack fits better with a wider aim, such as a protest over corruption in general.
26 Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 58.

27 Peter Richardson, “Why Turn the Tables? Jesus’ Protest in the Temple Precincts,”
SBLSP 31 (1992): 507–23. Cf. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Jesus and the Money Changers
(Mark 11:15‒17; John 2:13‒17),” RB 107 (2000): 42‒55.
28 Regev, “Moral Impurity and the Temple,” 397–402. Additional interpretations that have
not gained wide acceptance should also be mentioned: (1) Jesus attempted to reform
the cult in line with his alternative view on sacrifices and purity as suggested by Bruce
Chilton, The Temple of Jesus. (2) Jesus purposely offered a new way of atonement to the
sacrificial service through his upcoming death, advocated by Jostein Ådna, “Jesus and
the Temple,” 2668‒75; Jostein Ådna, “Jesus’ Symbolic Act in the Temple (Mark 11:15‒17):
The Replacement of the Sacrificial Cult by His Atoning Death,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel:
Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten
Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999),
461‒75. (3) Jesus intended to start a revolution, cf. Samuel G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the
Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (New York: Scribner’s, 1967),
331–36.
29 Jonathan Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the
Study of Ancient Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 222–45.
30 For scholars who view this action as an interpretative key, see Snodgrass, “The Temple
Incident,” 460–62.

288 Wassen
4 Jesus’s Act as an Enacted Prophecy
There is a variety of interpretations that highlight the apocalyptic symbol-

ism of the act. For example, Joachim Jeremias advocated that the primary
aim of Jesus’s action was to cleanse the temple to prepare for its escha-
tological function as a pilgrimage site for the gentiles, as Mark indicates:
“My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations” (Mark 11:17;
Isa 56:7).31 Given the disinterest in the salvation of the gentiles in Jesus’s
ministry in general, the historicity of the Isaiah quote has rightly been
questioned.32 In Meyer’s reconstruction Jesus’s message was not limited to the
temple, but had a much wider focus. Jesus used the temple as a scene to get
“maximum exposure” for his proclamation of the coming reign of God. Meyer
suggests that Jesus’s enacted prophecy expressed a critique of the temple
practice and that “cleansing” is an appropriate label. At the same time, the
critique was directed to the whole people, to “this generation.” Thus Meyer
maintains that Jesus acted in line with the prophets, in particular Jeremiah
(Jer 7:3, “Reform your ways . . .”), calling for repentance and threatening immi-
nent judgment on the people. But the act was also promise of restoration:
“It was at once a fulfilment event and a sign of the future, pledging the restora-
tion of the temple, Zion, and Jerusalem.”33 For Sanders, Jesus’s demonstration
specifically concerns the temple, but as part of a larger eschatological drama.
After dismissing all suggestions that Jesus protested against priestly corruption
or commercialism, and also rejecting the authenticity of the saying of Jesus
in Mark 11:17, Sanders argues that the act was a symbolic demonstration sig-
nifying the destruction of the temple. According to him, overturning tables
is a clear symbol of destruction, even though others disagree.34 Importantly,
Sanders points to other gospel traditions as support, i.e., Jesus’s prediction
about the upcoming destruction (Mark 13:1) and the charges that he had
threatened to destroy the temple (Mark 14:57‒58; Matt 26:60; Matt 27:40;
31 Joachim Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982), 65–66.
See Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” 2662.
32 Wedderburn, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 10.
33 Meyer, The Aims of Jesus, 180.
34 Sanders refers to the objection by Professor Moule who in a conversation suggested that
breaking a pot like Jeremiah (19:10) would have been a better symbol; Sanders, Jesus and
Judaism, 70. Dunn comments, “that the symbolism of Jesus’ action spoke of the Temple’s
destruction is certainly possible, though the point is hardly as clear-cut as Sanders
assumed.” James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, vol. 1 of Christianity in the Making (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 639. For arguments against the symbolism of destruction, see
Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” 465.

Mark 15:29; John 2:18‒22). It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jesus indeed
predicted the destruction. But, what about a restoration or rebuilding?
In light of the apocalyptic worldview that shaped Jesus’s actions and words,
the destruction of the temple belong to his end-time scenario of judgement
and a new age. As Sanders argues, a rebuilt temple is most likely part of Jesus’s
vision of the final era, hinted at in the charges against him, e.g., in John 2:19,
“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” a prediction about
destruction and rebuilding that John has reinterpreted (cf. “not with hands” in
Mark 14:57‒60).35 A key part of Sanders’s thesis is that Jesus was not protesting
against current temple practice since those kinds of charges, e.g., abuse and
dishonesty of the priests, are missing in the gospels.36 Sanders’s proposal has
been very influential.37 According to Paula Fredriksen, Jesus was enacting an
apocalyptic prophecy about the coming destruction of the temple by God, and
his eschatological picture included the temple’s renewal and rebuilding. Like
Sanders, she emphasizes that “the temple incident had nothing to do with any
supposed ‘cleansing,’ criticism, or condemnation.”38 Also Bart Ehrman in his
book Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium, takes for granted that
Jesus’s act was a symbolic demonstration of his apocalyptic message about an
upcoming destruction.39 At the same time he also holds that Jesus was reacting
to the corruption of the temple institution. In his view it is hard to know what
precisely Jesus was attacking, “It may simply have been that as a country fellow
from rural Galilee, who preached against wealth and power, the sheer opu-
lence of the place made his blood boil on principle.”40 One may wonder, how-
ever, why Jesus would have reacted so violently this time and not before, if we
35 See also Matt 26:60‒62; Acts 6:14, cf. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 71–76 and Collins,
“Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 49. For a critique of Collins’s thesis, which Sanders dis-
missed as a possible, but faulty, hypothesis before anyone (including Collins) proposed it,
see p. 67.
36 The exception is Mark 11:17, which is considered unhistorical by Sanders, Jesus and
Judaism, 66.
37 Some still see a protest implied as well. Morna Hooker argues that Jesus’s action sym-
bolises destruction but as a warning—not a prediction—aimed at the worshippers. The
critique by Jesus is obvious and well captured in the citations of the prophets by Jesus. She
posits the question: “Was Jesus’ action perhaps intended as a prophetic drama signifying
the rejection of the worship taking place in the temple?” (italics original); Morna D. Hooker,
The Signs of a Prophet: The Prophetic Actions of Jesus (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers,
2010), 47.
38 Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, 210.
39 Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, 212–14.
40 Ibid., 213.

290 Wassen
accept the common view that Jesus had been in Jerusalem many times. Also
James Dunn finds several plausible motifs in Jesus actions: a protest against the
temple operation; a symbol of destruction; a symbolic purification.41
Sanders has made a strong case for reading the symbolism behind Jesus’s act
as a prophecy of destruction and demonstrated how this fits in Jesus’s escha-
tological scenario of judgement, but also of the rebuilding and restoration
of the temple. At the same time, it is hard not to agree with the conclusions
by, e.g., Dunn, Ehrman, and Snodgrass that there is also an aspect of protest
and anger involved in Jesus’s violent outburst.42 As Dunn states, “Whatever
Jesus may have intended . . . the act could hardly have been understood by the
priestly authorities as other than critical of the Temple in its present form of
operation.”43 If it looked like a protest, it likely was a protest. Furthermore,
if the temple was to be destroyed by God, then there would also have to be a
reason for that, i.e., something must have been wrong with the temple practice
in Jesus’s view or it would not need to be ruined. How can the Dead Sea Scrolls
be used to make sense of the predictions of destruction and Jesus’s angry reac-
tion to the temple? Both Sanders and Evans—whose views are still very much
part of the current debate—are conspicuous for their heavy use of the Jewish
sources and my investigation of the usefulness of these sources will pay special
attention to their work.
5 The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha as Background to Jesus’s

Actions in the Temple
Sanders asks the question, whether anything indicated that Jesus attacked
“present practice” and not the temple service per se, which then would mean
that he may have shown himself as a reformer aiming at “cleansing the
temple.” Referring to the accusations against the priesthood and the temple
in Pss. Sol. 8:9‒14; 1QpHab 9:5; 12:8f.; and CD 4:18; 5:6–8, he argues that this
kind of evidence is irrelevant since there is no evidence of Jesus criticising
the temple or the priests in the gospels, with the exception of Mark 11:17 which
he considers inauthentic. Accordingly, if Jesus had been critical of the way
41 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 636–40.

42 Snodgrass writes, “Even if we do not understand all the details, clearly Jesus thought that
something was woefully wrong with the most sacred place in Israel.” Snodgrass, “The
Temple Incident,” 474.
43 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 638.

the temple was run, this should have been evident in the gospel traditions.44
In Sanders’s words, “If he [Jesus] actually explicitly opposed one of the main
institutions of Judaism, he kept it secret from his disciples.”45 In contrast, as
already mentioned, there are multiple attestations of Jesus’s sayings about
the destruction of the temple, both as predictions and threats. Jesus, accord-
ing to Sanders, prepared the people for imminent judgement and a new age
which included a new, restored temple. He cites numerous passages from
Jewish texts including the Dead Sea Scrolls to support the view that there was
a wide spread, apocalyptic hope for a new or renewed temple in the end time
(e.g., Tob 13:16‒18; 14:5f.; cf. Isa 54:11f.; 1 En. 90:28f.; Jub. 1:15‒17; T. Benj. 9:2;
Pss. Sol. 17; Sib. Or. 5:425; 1QM 7:4‒10; 4QpPsa [4Q171] 3:11; 11QTa 29:8‒10) and a
restored Jerusalem (Philo, Praem. 94‒97, 162‒72; Rev 21:9‒22:546). To Sanders’s
list 4QFlor (4Q174) 1‒2 i 3 should be added as yet another example of a text that
expresses a hope for an eschatological temple.47 Also the non-sectarian New
Jerusalem text (e.g., 1Q32; 2Q24; 11Q18) is pertinent; it focuses on an eschato-
logical temple with an altar (e.g., 11Q18 13 4; 16 ii + 17 i; 18; 19; 22) and the city of
Jerusalem.48 Sanders concludes that there was a wide range of different expec-
tations of the end time temple noting that at times a “new Jerusalem” or a “new
temple” implies the destruction of the old, although this is not always explic-
itly stated.49 Importantly, according to Sanders the allegations of a profanation

45 Ibid., 67.
46 Ibid., 86. Insightfully, Sanders understands John’s emphasis that he did not see a temple in
the city (Rev 22:21) as a polemic against the common expectation of an end-time temple.
47 Sanders does not include the text because it is unclear what the reference to miqdash
adam refers to, i.e., a temple among humans or a temple consisting of men, ibid., 84. But
scholars today typically distinguish between different temples in the text: an eschato-
logical temple (line 3), the community as a temple of men (line 6), and a brief reference
to the previous temple that was destroyed because of the people’s sins (lines 5‒6), see
Hogeterp, Expectations of the End, 66; Devorah Dimant, “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of
the Community as Temple,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage À Valentin Nikiprowetzky,
ed. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel et J. Riaud (Leuven: Peeters, 1986), 165–89 and Wardle, The
Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian Identity, 151–53; George J. Brooke, “The Ten Temples
in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel, ed. John Day (London:
T&T Clark, 2005), 417‒34.
48 Six copies were discovered at Qumran in caves 1, 2, 4, 5, and 11. Drawing on Ezek 40‒48
a visionary receives a guided tour of a Jerusalem of gigantic proportions. For an analy-
sis, see Lorenzo DiTomasso, The Dead Sea New Jerusalem Text: Contents and Contexts
(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). For references to the future temple, see also Klawans,
Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple, 164.

292 Wassen
of the temple in these texts refer to actual historical circumstances, and cleans-
ing is not part of the eschatological scenario. In this context he refers to the
Qumran community. For them, Sanders posits, the priesthood was immoral
but this was not part of the end time scenario: “pollution of the sanctuary is
not cited as a sign of the end.”50 I believe this point is overstated, and that
both pollution and destruction belong to common expectations for the end
time. The implications of this, as I will argue, is that Sanders’ thesis needs to
be revised.
For his part, Evans provides extensive support for his key argument that the
temple was widely seen as polluted and its priesthood corrupt, which gives the
appropriate background for understanding Jesus’s action as a reaction against
the deplorable state of affairs in the temple. A valuable point in Evans’s cri-
tique of Sanders is that the prophetic warnings of destruction always occur
together with charges of various kinds of corruption (although Evans argues
that Jesus did not predict a destruction).51 Warnings of destruction of the tem-
ple and accusations of sins naturally belong together as is apparent in, e.g.,
Jer 7:1‒15; Ezek 22:23‒31.
Key post-biblical texts to which Evans refers as “evidence of corruption in
the first-century temple” are Josephus, early rabbinic texts, and targumim.
Nevertheless, since these are post-70 sources their relevance is limited. In addi-
tion, as Evans also admits, Josephus’s critique of the priesthood pertains to the
late 50s and 60s.52 For traditions “reflecting the time of Jesus,” Evans refers to
the charges against the “Wicked priest” and the priesthood in the pesharim
(e.g., 1QpHab 8:8‒12; 9:5, 9; 12:8‒9 and 4QpNah 1:11). Although originally refer-
ring to the Hasmonean priests, according to Evans, these texts would have been
understood in the 1st century CE to refer to contemporary priests. Although I
date the pesharim later (see below) this interpretive principle is important.
The same kind of reinterpretation by later generations can also apply to other
documents with similar charges, i.e., Jub. 23:21, T. Levi 14:1‒6; 17:11, Pss. Sol. 17‒18,
and 1 En. 89‒90. These accusations from the 2nd century in combination with
the “significant evidence of greed and corruption” among the ruling priests
in Jesus’s time, raise “the possibility that some objectionable activity tak-
ing place in the Temple’s precincts when Jesus entered Jerusalem cannot be
50 Ibid., 89.

51 Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 408–12.
52 Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 53; Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 320‒37.
Evans tries to get around the problem by looking for “patterns or themes” (320). However,
the destruction of the temple must have had a major impact on the reflections on how the
temple was run.

dismissed out of hand.”53 Given the perceived pollution of the temple, he

explains that the Messiah was expected to “cleanse” the temple, not destroy it.
On this point I would object that the reasons motivating Jesus to act in a spe-
cific way should not be limited to the expectations linked to a Messiah figure.
Instead, I suggest his actions were influenced by a broad spectrum of beliefs
about the end time. In addition, it is unclear whether Jesus understood himself
as a Messiah.
Evans has received both critique and acclaim for the assertion that there
was evidence of corruption and abuse by the priests in the time of Jesus.54
Based on his extensive study on this topic, Jostein Ådna states:
There is no evidence of general exploitive conditions at the temple mar-

ket like high prices for monopoly products or unjustified charges for
money-changing, nor could a protest against the wealth and privileges
of the chief priests easily be understood an intended message of the
recounted acts by Jesus.55
As we will see below, rather than providing evidence for actual corruption it is
more likely that the accusations against the temple and its priesthood reflect
apocalyptic expectations.
53 Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 435.

54 Based on an analysis of almost the same sources as Evans, Wardle states, “there is good
reason to think that the portrayal of priestly rapacity and corruption in these sources is
founded on solid historical grounds”, Wardle, The Jerusalem Temple and Early Christian
Identity, 180. Although at times Evans claims that the texts only show that the priests were
believed to have been corrupt and that we cannot know if these allegations were factual,
at other times this fine distinction between perception and reality is lost. For example,
he concludes, “Since there is significant evidence of greed and corruption among the
ruling priests, particularly among some of the high priestly families (especially that of
Annas) . . .”; and see p. 428 “we cannot escape the conclusion that in all likelihood the high
priesthood of Jesus’ time was corrupt (or at least was assumed so) and that Jesus’ action
in the temple is direct evidence of this.” Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 395–439.
The finer distinction is not noted by all readers; e.g., Snodgrass writes, “Sometimes people
doubt corruption was much of a factor in the administration of the temple . . . but the evi-
dence is overwhelming that corruption of various sorts was a very real problem. No one
has done more to highlight the corruption than Craig Evans . . .”; Snodgrass, “The Temple
Incident,” 455–56.
55 Ådna, “Jesus and the Temple,” 2655. See also Jostein Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel: Die
Tempelaktion und das Tempelwort als Ausdruck seiner messianischen Sendung (Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 335–42.

294 Wassen
6 The End Time Temples in the Dead Sea Scrolls
Whereas Sanders points to widespread beliefs in an eschatological renewed or

rebuilt temple, Evans highlights perceptions of the temple as polluted and its
priesthood corrupt. In my view, both motifs are crucial in order to understand
Jesus’s actions. Let us first consider the accusations against the priesthood and
the defilement of the temple in the sectarian literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
which looms large in the debate. These charges appear only in a handful of
documents, i.e., two of the pesharim and the Damascus Document (D). In the
Admonition of D, that is, the sermon-like first part, we find repeated accusa-
tions about the defilement of the temple, e.g., in the well-known passage on
the nets of Belial (CD 4:12‒18):56
But during all those years, Belial will run unbridled amidst Israel, as
God spoke through the hand of the prophet Isaiah, son of Amos, saying,
“Fear and a pit and a snare are upon you, O inhabitant(s) of the land”
(Isa 24:17). Its interpretation: the three nets of Belial, of which Levi, the
son of Jacob, said that he (Belial) entrapped Israel with them, making
them seem as if they were three types of righteousness. The first is whore-
dom (‫)הזנות‬, the second wealth (‫)ההון‬, and the third defilement of the
sanctuary (‫)טמא המקדש‬.
The author then provides several examples of the alleged defilement of the
temple, i.e., through incest (uncle-niece marriages) and sexual intercourse
during menstruation (CD 5:6‒11). These charges concern the general popula-
tion and are not directed against the priests per se. Belial’s net of “wealth” is
never explained, but reappears on the next page in the context “the time of
evil,” when the covenanters are to “to separate (themselves) from the sons of
the pit and to refrain from the wicked wealth (‫ )מהון הרשעה‬which is impure
due to oath(s) and dedication(s) and to (being) the wealth of the sanctuary
(‫)ובהון המקדש‬, (for) they (the sons of the pit) steal from the poor of his peo-
ple, preying upon wid[ow]s and murdering orphans” (CD 6:14‒17).57 Whereas
the accusation about uncle-niece marriages concerns an actual dispute, the
56 Translation from James H. Charlesworth, ed., Damascus Document, War Scroll and Related
Documents, vol. 2 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English
Translations (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck/Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995).
57 One further example of harsh critique concerns how Israel “defiled the sanctuary” by sin
at a time when the house of Peleg departed from the city according CD 20:22‒23, but the
text does not specify how.

accusations about the defilement of the temple and the general corruption of
the priesthood, including the abuse of the poor, appear rather exaggerated.58
The harsh tone in these passages from the Admonition is also quite different
from the legal part of the same document that includes laws concerning the
priests and the cult, e.g., laws about disqualifications of priests who have been
held in captivity by gentiles or who emigrate (4Q266 5 ii 4‒13); these laws are
stated in a non-polemical fashion.59 The text of D displays clear signs of being
layered. In her thorough study on the literary development of D, Charlotte
Hempel places the legal part (the halakah), to which the laws on the sacrifices
and the temple belong, to an earlier stage than that of the Admonition.60 She
also points out that the halakah stratum of D shows similarities with docu-
ments such as 4Q159 (Ordinances) and 4QMMT. Importantly these legal texts
in general outline the laws in a neutral way without overt polemic.61 The
charges in Admonition, on the other hand, are reminiscent of the accusations
against the wicked priest in the pesharim 1QpHab and 4QpNah, where cor-
ruption, or greed, as well as general ‘abhorrent deeds’ pollute the temple. In
agreement with John Collins and Michael Wise I hold that the sect was formed,
not in the mid second century, but in the late 2nd century BCE and that the
pesharim concern people and events from the 1st century.62 Dated to the late
1st century BCE, 1QpHab and 4QpNah belong to the later pesharim and reflect
58 The charge of corruption is reminiscent of the critique by the prophets against the
wealthy, e.g., Mal 3:5; Jer 7:5‒6; Amos 2:6‒7; 4:1.
59 D as a whole gives evidence of different views on the temple; legislation concerning the
cult implies a continued association with the temple, e.g., CD 16:13‒17; 9:13‒14; 11:17‒21;
4Q266 5 ii; 4Q271 2. There is one legal case where the author warns about the possibility of
defilement of the temple, but there is no explicit critique: CD 12:1‒2 “Let no man lie with a
woman in the city of the sanctuary to defile the city of the sanctuary with their pollution.”
See Joseph M. Baumgarten et al., DJD 18.
60 Charlotte Hempel, The Laws of the Damascus Document: Sources, Tradition, and Redaction
(Leiden: Brill, 1998), 37–38.
61 Ibid., 69.
62 See Michael O. Wise, “Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of His
Movement,” JBL 122/1 (2003): 53–87. John J. Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community:
The Sectarian Movement of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 88–121.
See also Gregory L. Doudna, “The Sect of the Qumran Texts and its Leading Role in the
Temple in Jerusalem During Much of the First Century BCE: Toward a New Framework for
Understanding,” in Qumran Revisited: A Reassessment of the Archaeology of the Site and its
Texts, ed. David Stacey and Gregory Doudna (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2013), 75‒124 (81‒82).

296 Wassen
the intensified conflict between the sect and the Jerusalem priesthood, espe-
cially that between the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked priest.63
The Wicked priest is accused of transgressing the laws because of his greed
in 1QpHab 8:10‒13:
He became proud and forsook God and betrayed the commandments for
the sake of riches. He amassed by force the riches of the lawless who had
rebelled against God, seizing the riches of the peoples, thus adding to the
guilt of his crimes, and he committed ab[ho]rrent deeds in every defiling
impurity ‫ודרכי ת[וע]בות פעל בכול נדת טמאה‬.
Similarly, 1QpHab 12:7‒10 claims that “the Wicked Priest committed abhor-
rent deeds (‫ )מעשי תועבות‬defiling the Temple of God (‫)ויטמא את מקדש אל‬.” The
charge of corruption is also levelled against “the later priests of Jerusalem”
in 1QpHab 9:4‒5 who are said to “gather ill-gotten riches from the plunder of
the people” (cf. 4QpNah 3‒4 i 11‒12).64 Hence, the explicit accusations against
priests and the Wicked Priest refer to corruption and undefined abhorrent
activities as well as violence against the Teacher of Righteousness. They do not
primarily appear to concern specific halakic issues or the calendar.
According to these pesharim and the Admonition of the Damascus
Document, which reflect a later stage than 4QMMT, the corruption of the
priesthood in general and the wicked priest in particular, as well as sexual mis-
deeds of the people, cause defilement of the temple.65 These general charges
differ in tone and content from those in 4QMMT that concern specific halakic
disputes related to the temple and the priests, such as the handling of ani-
mal skins, tithing, and rules concerning the entrance of foreigners. There are
good reasons to believe that these halakic differences are the main reason for
the conflict that led to the formation of the sect, rather than a dispute over
the high priestly lineage or the calendar.66 The implication of the laws in
63 Albert Hogeterp distinguishes between early (pre-63 BCE) and late (post-63 BCE)
pesharim based on palaeography and the occurrence of the term “Kittim,” which signifies
the Romans. Hogeterp, Expectations of the End, 59–74.
64 According to 4QpPsa 4:8‒9, the Wicked priest attempted to kill the Righteous one and
destroy “the Law which he sent to him.” See also 1QpHab 11:4‒8 for a similar accusation.
65 Whereas in biblical law moral impurity concerns three grave sins, i.e., sexual transgres-
sions, idolatry, and murder (e.g., Lev 18:24‒30; 19:31; 20:1‒3; Num 35:33‒34), the accusa-
tions against the priests in the Admonition also associate corruption with impurity; see
Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism, 26–31.
66 If the origin of the sect is placed towards the very end of the 2nd century BCE then the
Hasmoneans have held the high priestly office for some time. For the view that no dispute

4QMMT is that the current temple praxis actually defiles the temple. Still, the
overall tone may be described as fairly moderate, moving from being neutral
to slightly polemical. The aim of the treatise is to persuade the addressee(s)
to change their ways; in the end, the author refers to the wisdom and knowl-
edge of the Torah of the addressee (C 27‒28) and implores him to change his
practice (C 30).
Given these general differences between 4QMMT and the laws in D on the
one hand, and the pesharim and the Admonition, on the other, it is possible
to trace a broad trajectory in the attitudes towards the temple. From a more
neutral stance in early texts, in which specific legal issues are at the centre
of the dispute in the early phase, there is a movement towards charges about
a general corruption and defilement of the temple in a later phase.67 This
development follows a general tendency. In his study of conflicts in the area
of sexual and marital laws, William Loader reconstructs a pattern of conflict
which “has moved from dispute to disparagement, from argumentation to
alienation.”68 According to him, the later stage is characterized by a generalisa-
tion and absence of details, which he calls “the disparagement phase,” when
legal conflicts are seen as belonging to the past. This general trend suggests
that we should not be looking for specific underlying issues of dispute behind
the accusations concerning the defilement of the temple in D and pesharim,
but understand them as unspecific and exaggerated charges, which are part of
the vilification of the adversaries and an alienation from outsiders. One impor-
tant factor behind this trend are apocalyptic expectations.
over the high priestly office is evident, see Collins, Beyond the Qumran Community,
95‒98. In a survey article on calendars from Qumran, Helen Jacobus states succinctly:
“There is no unequivocal evidence from the manuscripts themselves, or from the clas-
sical sources, of any kind of calendrical polarisation, nor that different calendars were
the cause of a schism, or that they resulted in politicised calendar difference.” Helen
Jacobus, “Calendars in the Qumran Collection,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran and the
Concept of a Library, ed. Sidnie White Crawford and Cecilia Wassen (Leiden: Brill, 2016),
217‒243 (241).
67 I do not include the metaphors by which temple imagery is applied to the community
in 1QS in this trajectory since they pertain to the self-identity of the community, empha-
sizing its holiness, and reveal very little on the attitude towards the temple other than
its holy status. See Cecilia Wassen, “Do You Have to Be Pure in a Metaphorical Temple?
Sanctuary Metaphors and Construction of Sacred Space in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Paul’s
Letters,” in Purity, Holiness, and Identity in Judaism and Christianity: Essays in Memory of
Susan Haber, ed. Carl S. Erlich, Anders Runesson and Eileen Schuller (Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2013), 55–86.
68 William Loader, “Sex and Conflict Development in Qumran Literature” (unpublished).

298 Wassen
Several early Jewish texts with an apocalyptic orientation warn about the
defilement of a future priesthood. Thus Jub. 23:21 claims that the priests will
“pollute the holy of holies with their pollution and with corruption of their
contamination.” Similar accusations concerning greed, pride, and sexual
depravity of the priests that defile the temple are found in the Testament of
Levi (T. Levi 14‒17).69 Furthermore, future priests are charged with corrup-
tion in the Testament of Moses (T. Mos. 5:4‒5).70 1 Enoch 89:73 in the Animal
Apocalypse claims that the priests will offer polluted food after the rebuilding
of the temple (“tower”). The book of Daniel also predicts a future defilement
of the temple in connection to its destruction, in very specific terms: 9:26‒27:71
The troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the
sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be
war. Desolations are decreed. He shall make a strong covenant with many
for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering
cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the
decreed end is poured out upon the desolator.
This prophecy has been influential for Jesus (Mark 13:14) as will be discussed
below. The non-sectarian document, 4Q390 Apocryphon of Jeremiah, is yet
another example of predictions about the sins of both the people and the
priesthood.72 Two fragments are preserved of the document which provides
an historical review based on an interpretation of Daniel’s explanation of
the 70-year prophecy in Dan 9 (cf. Jer 25:8‒14; 29:4‒14); thereby the history
of the seven periods of 70 years (Dan 9) are outlined in 4Q390.73 Concerning
the time after the rebuilding of the temple (i.e., the second temple), the
69 John Joseph Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic
Literature, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 141.
70 Ibid., 129. This passage appears in the part that was likely composed in the 160s BCE. The
document was composed during the crisis under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but was later
updated to include references to Hasmoneans and Herod the Great.
71 For the close relationship between defilement and destruction in this passage, see Brant
Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin
of the Atonement (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 309‒14.
72 According to Eshel the document may have been composed in the second half of the
first century BCE, see Hanan Eshel, “4Q390, the 490-Year Prophecy, and the Calendrical
History of the Second Temple Period,” in Enoch and Qumran Origins: New Light on a
Forgotten Connection, ed. Gabriele Boccaccini (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 102–10.
73 This intricate calculation of time refers both to periods of 70 years (7 × 70 = 490) (4Q390
1 2) and 49 years, i.e., jubilees (10 × 49 = 490) (4Q390 1 7; 2 i 6). The numbering of the

text reads “But at the end of that generation, in the seventh jubilee after the
destruction of the land, they shall forget law, festival, Sabbath, and covenant,
and shall violate everything, and they shall do evil before me” (4Q390 i 7‒9).
The second fragment highlights the general corruption of the people which
defiles the temple, similar to the topic of column one. Only the beginning of a
specific accusation about the violence of the priests is preserved.74
Taken together these texts provide evidence of an expectation of future
defilement of the temple through the corruption of both the priesthood and
the people, an evil generation before the new era. Although these apocalypti-
cally oriented documents were written in the second century BCE and with
reference to events in that time, for later readers, including the Qumran sectar-
ians, these end-time predictions concerned their own time, which Evans also
notes. Nevertheless, Evans fails to draw out the important implications of this
for understanding the actions of Jesus. The general expectation of the pollu-
tion of the temple forms a backdrop to explain why the critique of the temple
in the late sectarian literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls is expressed in exagger-
ated terms, including accusations of all kinds of evil deeds, in particular sexual
transgressions and moral corruption which defile the temple. Thereby predic-
tions about a corrupt priesthood and a defiled temple became self-fulfilled
prophecies in the scrolls. It would not matter much what the priests did; the
sectarians would accuse the priesthood of general corruption and defilement
of the temple, since they believed they were living in the end time when these
things would occur.
The expectations of an impure temple goes hand in hand with the strong
hope for a new or renewed temple, which is evident in many Second Temple
texts. From Qumran, 4QFlor 1‒2 i 2‒6 and 11QT 29:8‒10 testify to the belief in a
new, glorified temple of divine origin.75 Also the New Jerusalem text refers to
a rebuilt temple. The expectations concerning the temple in the end time are
not as explicit in 1QM 7:4‒10 and 4QpPsa 3:11, but they do pertain to a renewed
cult. It goes without saying that the expectations for a new temple rested
on the perception that something was wrong with the current one which is
fragments follows that of Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., Additional Genres and
Unclassified Texts, vol. 6 of The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 112–15.
74 4Q390 2 i 8‒10 reads, “they have chosen to enrich themselves by ill-gotten wealth and
illegal profit [. . .] they will rob, oppress one another, and they will defile my temple [they
will profane my sabbaths,] they will for[ge]t my fes]tivals, and with fo[reign)ers [t]hey
will profane their offspr[ing]. Their priests will commit violence.” See Eshel, “4Q390, the
490-Year Prophecy,” 104–5.
75 George J. Brooke, “Ten Temples,” 430–31.

300 Wassen
consistent with the visions of Ezekiel. For Ezekiel the destruction is the result
of defilement of the temple (e.g., 5:11; 8‒9), but he also envisioned a future
rebuilt temple (43‒48). This line of thought is explicit in the predictions for the
new temple in 4QFlor 1‒2 i 3‒6:76
[ ‘The sanctuary, O Lord, which] thy hands have [es]stablished.

Yahweh will rule for ever and ever.’ That is the house ‘where there shall
never more enter [ ]’ and ‘the Ammonite and the Moabite’ and ‘Bastard’
and ‘alien’ and sojourner ‘for ever’ (Deut 23:2‒3) for my holy ones are
there. [ ] ever, he shall be seen continually upon it, and strangers shall
not again make it desolate as they desolated formerly the sant[tuary of
I]srael because of their sin.
7 Jesus’s Actions and Expectations
I propose that Jesus, like the Qumran sectarians, assumed that the temple
would become defiled and profaned in the end times, which he believed was
his own time. As discussed above, the predictions about the immanent destruc-
tion of the temple most likely stem from Jesus’s prophetic messages. Given this
expectation, he must also have assumed that something was wrong with the
temple, or else there would be no need for it to be destroyed. As noted above,
Sanders argues that there is no evidence of such expectation in the teaching
of Jesus because there is no critique against the priesthood nor against the
temple.77 But there is a saying about a future defilement of the temple in the
apocalyptic discourse in Mark 13, which noticeably begins with Jesus’s pre-
diction of the demise of the temple building (13:2). Mark 13:14 refers to “the
desolating sacrilege,” which is part of the unit 13:14‒20 concerning the coming
suffering:
But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be
(let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains;
15 the one on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take
anything away; 16 the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat.
17 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in
those days! 18 Pray that it may not be in winter. 19 For in those days there
will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation
76 Translation from Donald W. Parry and Emanuel Tov, eds., Exegetical Texts, vol. 2 of The
Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 2–3.

that God created until now, no, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had
not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the
elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days.
The expression “desolating sacrilege” (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως) refers to the
Book of Daniel where it occurs in various forms three times (9:27; 11:31; 12:11; cf.
1 Macc 1:54). Although parts of Mark 13 show clear signs of originating in the
early church (e.g., 13:9‒11, 32) there is no reason to dismiss the chapter as late.
However, the saying about the desolating sacrilege in Mark 13:14 is usually not
accepted as authentic by scholars, who instead tie it to later events, e.g., the
failed attempt by Caligula to erect statue of himself in the temple 39/40 CE,
Pilate’s bringing standards into Jerusalem, or Titus’s entry into the Holy of
Holies.78 A common argument against the authenticity of the saying is that
there are no similar traditions ascribed to Jesus elsewhere. For example, James
Crossley states, “If the historical Jesus did make such a prediction more would
surely be said about it in the synoptic tradition and so there is good reason
to doubt the argument for the historicity of Mk 13.14.”79 But there are several
reasons for why Jesus likely would have said something like that. First, the say-
ing is entirely plausible in connection to the prediction of the destruction of
the temple, which most scholars, including Crossley, takes as originating with
Jesus. Second, Jesus appears to have been strongly influenced by the prophe-
cies found in Daniel. Like other Jews he considered Daniel not as a writer from
the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, but as an exilic prophet whose predic-
tions applied to his own time. Daniel’s influence on Jesus’s expectations for the
end time is evident also in the prophecy about the arrival of the Son of Man
(Mark 13:26; Dan 7:13‒14) and likely also in the warnings about sufferings.80
Third, the prophecy about the desolating sacrilege, like that about the Son
of Man, did not materialize.81 Although scholars point to various possible
78 There are exceptions, see Brant Pitre ( Jesus, the Tribulation, 314‒59) argues that the sec-
tion 13:14‒27 goes back to Jesus.
79 James G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity
(London: T&T Clark, 2004), 23.
80 Nicholas Taylor notes that “first-century Jews regarded Daniel as an exilic prophet of
events yet to be fulfilled, and would not have connected these texts with Antiochus”;
Nicholas H. Taylor, “Palestinian Christianity and the Caligula Crisis: Social and Historical
Reconstruction,” JSNT 61 (1996): 2. There are additional overlaps with Daniel in the sec-
tion; Mark 13:19 is reminiscent of Dan 12:1; see Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, 300.
81 Pitre ( Jesus, the Tribulation, 356) also points to the discontinuity of the tradition in the
early church. In agreement with, e.g., Ehrman ( Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New
Millennium, 145–48), I hold that Jesus expected a coming cosmic figure (an angel?) who
would judge the world.

302 Wassen
“fulfilments,” as mentioned above, they do not fit very well. A basic facet in
historical Jesus research is to probe why a certain tradition appears in the early
texts.82 In this case, the most obvious answer is to ascribe the expectation that
the temple would be defiled to Jesus, since there are no reasons for why the
church would have invented the saying. Instead the church appears to have
struggled with the prediction. Mark’s enigmatic note, “let the reader under-
stand,” may encourage his readers to interpret the saying, which on the surface
appears to have been a failed prophecy, in light of later events, e.g., the crisis
during Caligula’s time. Alternatively, the saying is attributed to Jesus, i.e., “let
the reader (of Daniel) understand.”83 In either case, Jesus’s prediction about
the coming desolating sacrilege provides evidence that his apocalyptic imagi-
nations included both defilement and destruction of the temple in line with
biblical prophecies such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.
The anticipation of the defilement of the temple offers an interpretative
key for understanding Jesus’s violent reaction in the temple. Simply put, Jesus
believed the temple was defiled because it was supposed to become defiled
at the end time. This explains the rage that he expressed. His last visit to
Jerusalem began with an extraordinary entry whereby he acted as a royal char-
acter riding into Jerusalem and being hailed by his supporters as a Davidic king
(Mark 11:9‒10; Zech 9:9), which was followed by his enacted prophecy about
destruction in the temple. These actions strongly suggest that Jesus was con-
vinced that God’s reign would begin instantaneously, which also implies that
the temple had already begun to be defiled, and that destruction was looming
overhead.84 Jesus shared these expectations with the Qumran sectarians, i.e., it
did not matter what the priesthood did—the temple was perceived as defiled
because it was bound to be defiled and destroyed in the end times.
82 According to Thomas Kazen, the traditional authenticity criteria have limited useful-
ness, instead “we must look for reasonable suggestions that may satisfactorily explain the
development and elaboration of the Jesus tradition, taking the socio-religious and his-
torical context into account.” See Thomas Kazen, Scripture, Interpretation, or Authority?
Motives and Arguments in Jesus’ Halakic Conflicts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 28.
83 Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, 310–13.
84 For the view of Jesus’s anticipation of the imminence of the kingdom during the last
Passover, see Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth.

8 Conclusion
Jesus’s action in the temple should be understood against the backdrop of the
apocalyptic currents of his time. Jewish literature from the late Second Temple
period testifies to intense speculations concerning the end time in which the
temple played a central role. Common for these apocalyptic scenarios was that
the temple would become perfect as a true dwelling place for God, whether in
a renewed form or as a new building (after destruction). Coupled with these
predictions is the critique, inspired by prophets such as Ezekiel, that the priest-
hood was corrupt and the temple defiled. Although these accusations came to
the fore in connection with the Maccabean crisis with its infamous defilement
of the temple by Antiochus, they were reinterpreted by later generations as
pertaining to their own time. Thereby, there was an apocalyptic anticipation
that the temple would become defiled in the eschaton. A critique against the
priesthood is a well-known motif in the sectarian literature from the Dead Sea
Scrolls. It is noteworthy that the accusations of the worst kind of defilements
of the temple belong to the latest phase of the sectarian writings. I outlined
a trajectory from disputes relating to specific halakic issues belonging to an
early phase, to general and overall exaggerated charges of a later period. One
important factor behind this development is the anticipation of the defile-
ment of the temple, which belongs to the final age before God’s visitation when
humanity is under the sway of Belial. In other words, the temple was supposed
to become defiled and hence it was perceived as though it was. I have argued
that Jesus’s action is intelligible from this perspective. Anticipating the defile-
ment and destruction of the temple as part of the end time scenario, Jesus
enacted its demise symbolically by attacking people and things. It is incon-
ceivable that Jesus would have acted in this way without being angry about
something, without protesting against current practice. Instead he undoubt-
edly protested against the current defiled state of temple practice, although we
cannot know if there was a specific aspect at which he aimed his anger. Thus,
in broad strokes Jesus’s views on the temple are reminiscent of those of the
Qumran movement. Like the Qumran sectarians, Jesus would have perceived
the temple as defiled and expected a new perfect temple to take its place, and
the priests were doomed to fail regardless of their conduct.


(15685179 - Dead Sea Discoveries) The Use of The Dead Sea Scrolls For Interpreting Jesus's Action in The Temple

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(15685179 - Dead Sea Discoveries) The Use of The Dead Sea Scrolls For Interpreting Jesus's Action in The Temple

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

The Use of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Interpreting

Temple – Jesus – Dead Sea Scrolls – Qumran – Apocalyptic Expectations

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi 10.1163/15685179-12341405

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

highlight a neglected aspect of common ground between Jesus and the

2 Jesus’s Action in the Temple and Scholarly Discussions

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

In light of Josephus’s accounts and archaeological research on Jerusalem, the

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

14 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 70.

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

3 Jesus’s Act as a Protest or a Call for Reform

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

which distinguishes between an external form of worship and inner values,

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

26 Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 58.

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

4 Jesus’s Act as an Enacted Prophecy

There is a variety of interpretations that highlight the apocalyptic symbol-

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

5 The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pseudepigrapha as Background to Jesus’s

41 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 636–40.

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

44 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 65–66.

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

50 Ibid., 89.

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

dismissed out of hand.”53 Given the perceived pollution of the temple, he

There is no evidence of general exploitive conditions at the temple mar-

53 Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 435.

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

6 The End Time Temples in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Whereas Sanders points to widespread beliefs in an eschatological renewed or

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

[ ‘The sanctuary, O Lord, which] thy hands have [es]stablished.

7 Jesus’s Actions and Expectations

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

Dead Sea Discoveries 23 (2016) 280–303

You might also like

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��6 | doi 10.1163/15685179-12341405

14 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 70.

26 Collins, “Jesus’ Action in Herod’s Temple,” 58.

41 Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 636–40.

44 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 65–66.

50 Ibid., 89.

53 Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple,” 435.