tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post9000586203793572643..comments2024-03-28T15:07:22.673+05:30Comments on Shoot First, Mumble Later: Jesus, money changers and money lendersGirish Shahanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16877402074547726173noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-83249502627355892802016-02-20T22:50:22.393+05:302016-02-20T22:50:22.393+05:30Reference the comment about churches also selling ...Reference the comment about churches also selling things, it's important to note the distinction between the one Jerusalem Temple with it's Levitical laws around purity and Holiness and the regular church that is visited on a weekly basis by non-levitical priests.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-6726275821872923242013-01-06T12:52:42.175+05:302013-01-06T12:52:42.175+05:30OK, Madison was definitely equating money changers...OK, Madison was definitely equating money changers and money lenders. In fact, he was equating money changers with banks, which not only issue money but also lend it. The money changers in the Temple neither issued money (there was a monopoly currency accepted within the Temple in Jesus's time, but it was minted in Tyre) nor gave it on loan, so Madison, in speaking of the cleansing of the Temple, was following the erroneous tradition I've written about.<br />A number of commentators appear to be confusing the half shekel annual tax paid by adult male Jews to the Temple, with what the money changers were doing. This, again, appears misguided to me. Local Jews had access to the Tyre half shekel, and it was mainly these people who paid the tax. Pilgrims might also have paid the tax but they were mainly there to offer sacrifices and donations over and above that tax. Jesus doesn't seem to have had anything against the tax, for he paid it for himself and Peter. He did it, though, in the Jesus fashion: instructing Peter to catch a fish, and look in its mouth, wherein a four drachma coin would be found, enough to pay Jesus' tax as well as Peter's.Girish Shahanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16877402074547726173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-13993773424634935752013-01-06T12:08:16.731+05:302013-01-06T12:08:16.731+05:30Hi VV,
Thanks so much for that elucidation. I had ...Hi VV,<br />Thanks so much for that elucidation. I had no idea about Madison using scripture in that context.<br />As far as the monopoly theory goes, I suspect it is one of those post-facto justifications of acts that are hard to justify at face value.<br />After all, Jesus not only threw out the money changers, he did the same with people selling animals for sacrifice.<br />I can understand him at one level. One recent post by me was about the Kali Temple in Calcutta, and going through that experience reminded me of the Jesus story. I half-wished someone would come in with a whip and set things straight. It's possible the Jerusalem Temple priests and vendors had the same mercenary attitude as those in and around the Kali Temple. Maybe they were cheaters inside a tourist trap (or pilgrim trap) and had a cartel going to fleece visitors. But that's still some way from being monopolists, except inside the Temple precinct, no? I'm going to look up historical evidence for the monopoly theory now.Girish Shahanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16877402074547726173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-3161773159874945192013-01-06T11:54:28.925+05:302013-01-06T11:54:28.925+05:30Very interesting. Another spin of the story that I...Very interesting. Another spin of the story that I have heard was that Jesus was against monopoly not business in general, specifically monopoly over currency generation (functions of the RBI and other central banks not the bureau de change). Madison used that story in his famous statement on banks and monetary policy “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance.” I believe this was during the debates around the creation of the first bank of the US (which Hamilton wanted).<br /><br />The money-changers in Jerusalem, I understand, held the monopoly about how the money is to be transacted, the Temple Tax could be paid in this one limited currency whose value used to be arbitrarily inflated by the money-changers because they held most of that currency. So Madison was very anxious about giving federal monopoly to the minting of money to one institution. Wonder what Madison (and Jesus) would say about China and their holdings of US securities). VV<br />VVnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-81364025915371151662013-01-06T08:14:27.859+05:302013-01-06T08:14:27.859+05:30I believe Rene Girard's idea is that Jesus was...I believe Rene Girard's idea is that Jesus was symbolically the scapegoat that would end all other sacrifices. Put another way, to see through the idea that sacrifice was efficacious. seana grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03774794086733027289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-83469809326087817072013-01-06T08:05:42.434+05:302013-01-06T08:05:42.434+05:30Hmm, hadn't thought of it in that way. The dov...Hmm, hadn't thought of it in that way. The doves being sold in there were for sacrifice along with goats and oxen. Depending on one's budget one could sacrifice large or small birds and beasts. Not sure if sacrificing doves came to sound particularly reprehensible in retrospect. They also feature in Abraham's prep for Isaac's sacrifice.Girish Shahanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16877402074547726173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-36790532345298693402013-01-06T07:58:25.793+05:302013-01-06T07:58:25.793+05:30Since the third aspect of the Trinity is so often ...Since the third aspect of the Trinity is so often symbolized by the dove, I suppose it would be a bit tricky for him to chase out the dove sellers. Or maybe not?seana grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03774794086733027289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-50753323896692129812013-01-06T07:46:35.186+05:302013-01-06T07:46:35.186+05:30Thanks, Seana. The bit about the pigeons (or doves...Thanks, Seana. The bit about the pigeons (or doves in some translations) militates against the idea that Jesus was after usurers, so dropping that is part and parcel of the deliberate misremembering, I suspect.Girish Shahanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16877402074547726173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7024210672199702325.post-76577898678666556302013-01-06T00:50:09.481+05:302013-01-06T00:50:09.481+05:30Very good piece. I am from a fairly secularized ba...Very good piece. I am from a fairly secularized background, so not steeped in any philosophies about usury, etc., but I always find misreadings fascinating as well. And I did not remember anything about the pigeons, but there they are, in both versions.<br /><br />What's also interesting to me is that the specifics make this less a fable about Jesus than an account of an incident that might actually have taken place.seana grahamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03774794086733027289noreply@blogger.com