Loan Sharks in the Temple? – Pigeon Sellers

Loan Sharks in the Temple?

The socio-economic function of money-changers in the Jerusalem temple

Dana Ouellette

What I will Cover

• Introduction
  • History of Interpretation
  • Method
  • Context - The Temple
  • Pigeon Sellers
• Money-Changers
  • banking in the ancient world
    • τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν
    • κολλυβιστικῆς τραπέζης
  • banking in the Jewish context
• Conclusion
  • what does it all mean?

Just letting you know what you are in for. Yes one of my later arguments will be heavily linguistic argument with the greek language. But I have tried my best to assure that I explain enough so that you can still follow and enjoy even if you don't know Greek.

Brief history of interpretation

Traditional interpretation - cleansing the temple for reasons of purity (Moule, Gundry, Williamson, France, Collins, et al...)

• The meaning of the temple event both as a historical event, as a story in a particular narrative story has been hotly debated for many years.
• Before 1985 there was mostly scholarly concensus that this was a "cleansing" due largely to issues of purity within the temple although many acknowledge economic corruption was a motivation, with a few minor exceptions such as Brandon
• This began to become hotly debated after 1985 with the publication of "Jesus in Judaism by E.P. Sanders and as a result there currently basically only three schools of thought, it is slightly more complicated but basically there are 3 main categories.

Interpretation based on assumption

Many of the above scholarly papers and monographs make 2 implicit yet erroneous assumptions:

Importance of Money Changers

• Many of these interpretations based on role of the “money-changers”
  • Service vital to sacrifice/temple = Condemnation of the temple (Sanders)
  • Just another trader who should be outside of the temple = “cleansing” the temple
  • Overcharging/profiteering for high priest = protest against corruption

on this last point it can be subdivided. For example Jeramias argues that it was ultimately the high priestly family that ultimately benefited the most and that protest was likely against the high priest. Others have argued that the money-changers themselves are the ones who are being protested against for their own corruption.

Method

• The social, economic, and political roles of all characters within their historical context should be understood, before one can understand the meaning of a protest against them.
• Take the warnings of Chilton and Evans – Jesus’ protest must be looked at in light of other ancient protests

How I am going to proceed is to look at the socio-economic role context of the temple, and then the birdsellers and money-changers to understand what a protest against them might mean. Then I will look at other similar protests to provide a lens with which to view this one.

Now lets look at the temple event. When I look at this there are a few things we notice right off the bat. Matthew and Mark are verbatim on Money changers and and bird sellers. Mark add's an odd clause about not permitting anyone to carry anything. Luke omits all details of the protest. No mention of whom Jesus is protesting against. John adds a whip and sheep and oxen, but is clear Jesus' focus on bird-sellers and money-changers. I don't put much stock in the historicity of John

Physical context – the Temple

What role did the temple play in the lives of people?

• Religious centre
  • Sacrifice, ritual
• Political centre
  • Religious law, propaganda (for Herod and for the high priests)
• Economic centre
  • Centre of trade, storage of wealth, banking centre, debt creation for peasantry, wealth creation for high priestly family

The Jerusalem temple was the economic center of life in Judea."Fundamentaly an economic institution and dominated the city's commercial life." (Meyers 300, Jeremias 25-57)

Temple economics

• Temple tax - half-shekel
• Tithe - 10% of all crops in Judea
• Sacrifice
• Deposit
• Josephus Ant. 14.110
• Tacitus Hist 5.8.1

Temple Tax - half-shekel (or doubledracma or two denarii) to be paid annually by every Jewish male over twenty years old, even Diaspora Jews For Judean peasants surviving at a subsistence level, one tenth of their crop was more than they could afford. The situation was not much better for Diaspora Jews, as Rome already took a percentage of their crop (usually around one quarter) and a tribute of 1 denarius per year.48 With Rome demanding a quarter of their crop every year and 1 denarius per year, the two denarii demanded by the temple, was more than most Diaspora Jews were able to pay. Josephus ant 14:110 "let no none wonder that there is so much wealth in our temple since all jews on earth sent their contributions to it Tacitus states that Jerusalem “a temple possessing enormous riches.”

Judean economy under Roman rule

• Centralization of land
• Taxes
• Increased debt
• "The indebtedness of small farmers and expropriation of their land are the hallmarks of this roman epoch" (Stegemann & Stegemann, 112)

Centralization(expropriation) of land from small farmers into the hands of the elite

Characters

• Jesus' attack is focused on 2 specific targets
  • Pigeon Sellers
  • Money Changers

Who were the money changers?

There is a simple answer and a complex answer

Finally we get to the heart of the matter. What did money changers actually do. The simple answer is they exchanged foreign currency into the ritualistically pure Tyrian shekel required to pay the temple tax. This fact is repeated ad nauseum in every single commentary on Mark, Matthew and John. I think we can do a bit better. it is difficult to say anything illegent about money changers without understanding the larger context of banking in the ancient world

Banking institutions in the ancient world

• argentarii
• nummularii
• τράπεζα
• κολλυβιστικαὶ τράπεζαι

The first bankers took deposits to keep them safe, but it didn't take long before some to realized that with large amounts of money on hand they could lend some of that out for a fee and make more money.argentarii - silversmiths, deposit bankers, 2nd century AD started lendingnumularii - deposits, exchanged coins then lending trapeza - literally means table. lending with interest demosthanes and isocrates warn against them kollubistikai trapezai - found in egypt started as moneychangers but became lenders. Many loan receipts in papyri

τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν

A few things are obvious here. Luke omits all mention of money changer, Matthew and Mark agree verbatim, and although John is a completely unique source john also agrees on the wording

τράπεζα as a play on words

But what kind of bank?

τράπεζα

• 5th Century B.C.E. Athens - assaying and exchanging coins, deposit
• 4th Century B.C.E. Athens - Lending with interest
  • Demosthenes - Against Apaturius
  • Isoctrates - Trapeziticus
• 2nd Century B.C.E. - 2nd Century C.E. Egypt - loan contract papyri
  • P. Ryl.585.40-46 (second century B.C.E.).
  • BGU 1158.22 (9 B.C.E.)
  • P. Tebt. 389 (141 C.E.)
• Late 1st century C.E.
  • Luke 19:23, Matthew 25:27 (80-100 C.E.)

Demosthenes wrote several speaches about people attempting to get out of loan contracts in the 4th century Isocrates wrote a lengthy defense of someone who was ripped off by an unscripulous trapeza with interest

For contracts with the managers of banks are entered into without witnesses, and any who are wronged by them are obliged to bring suit against men who have many friends, handle much money, and have a reputation for honesty because of their profession. In spite of these considerations I think I shall make it clear to all that I have been defrauded of my money by Pasion.

why the gap? remember what happened in the late 4th century in the greek world? Collapse.

Not just a τράπεζα

• Jesus doesn't just attack a τράπεζα but τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν
• What about κολλυβιστής in the ancient world?
• Actually a rare and unpopular word?

Loan Contracts

κολλυβιστικῆς τραπέζης found in

• 16 loan contract papyri
• 1 ostracon

BGU 741.10 (143 B.C.E., Alexandria?); 1053.16-17 (13 B.C.E., Alexandria); 1118.23 (22 B.C.E., Alexandria); 1144.6a (13 B.C.E., Alexandria); 1149.7 (13 B.C.E., Alexandria); 1151.29 (13 B.C.E., Alexandria); 1152.4-5, 13-14 (10 B.C.E., Alexandria); 1156.9 (15 B.C.E.,Alexandria); 1163.6 (16-13 B.C.E., Alexandria); 1166.6 (13 B.C.E., Alexandria); 1170.28 (13 B.C.E., Alexandria); P. Hamb. 1.2 (57 C.E., Alexandria); P. Münch 94.8 (98-102 C.E., Ptolemais Euergetis [Arsinoites]); P. Oxy. 2471.10-11, 13, 19-20 (50 C.E., Oxyrhynchus); PSI 1235.7 (38-39 C.E., Oxyrhynchus); 1318.11 (31 C.E., Alexandria); O. Stras. 780.2 (29 C.E., Papa).

κολλυβιστικῆς τραπέζης

Above is a picture of BGU 1053 a loan contract written on April 2, 13 BC. It details the terms of an interest free loan to Lykarion, Ptolemais, and Theotarian from Gaius Iulius Philios for 300 Drachmas to be paid back "through the money-changer bank of Kastor" within 10 months. These documents are very forulaic. They always contain similar language and always always contain 1) details of party 1 2) details of party 2 3) Declaration of the receipt of the loan 4) penalty clause 5) date

BGU 1053

συνχωροῦσιν Λυκα- ρίων κ[αὶ] Πτολεμαῖος καὶ Θ̣ε̣ω̣τάριον ἔχιν(*) παρὰ τοῦ Γαίου Ἰουλίου Φιλίου δάνηον(*)διὰ τῆς Κάστορος κολλυβισ- τικῆς τραπέζης ἀργυρί- ου Πτολεμαικοῦ (δραχμὰς) τ ἄτο- κον, ὃ καὶ ἀποδώσειν ἐν

Lykarion and Ptolemaios and |14 Theotarion agree that they have received from |15 Gaius Iulius Philios an interest-free loan, |16 through the money-changing bank of Kastor, of |17-18 300 Ptolemaic silver drachmas,

κολλυβιστικός v.s. κολλυβιστής

• κολλυβιστικός = adjectival form of κολλυβιστής
• Legalese v.s. narrative/action
• Every other example we have of κολλυβιστής occurs with τραπέζης it refers to a lending institution

Is it a lexical variant? Is it a cognate? Is it a regional variation?

Banking in the Jewish Context

• Mishna Shekalim 1.3
• משכן
  • To seize
  • To take a pledge

So we've talked about in a lot of detail about the greaco-roman context of money-changing and bankingOn the 25th the money changers would go to the Temple. When they moved to the Temple they began to seize (property and other valuables for coins).

fees

• about 1/24 of a shekel
• 8% surcharge is not exorbidant

according to rabbinic sources the fee charged by money-changers is roughtly 1/24 of a shekel. Which is about 8% of a 1/2 shekel tax. This is a not an exoridant amount. And I do not think that it is the fee that is the issue. So it wasn't the money-changers who were getting rich. If not them then who was behind this protest

Follow the money

• High Priests
• Josephus details popular sentiment against high priestly families:
  • Greed - "great hoarder of money" (Josephus Ant. 20.205)
  • Bribery (Ant. 20.213; Life 39)
  • Nepostism
  • Corruption

the high priestly families were not just the wealthiest in Judea but seemingly according to josephus one of the wealtheiest in all rome. But they hoarded their wealth and used it to line their offices with gold plaques, and to bribe for personal gain. The captin of the treasury who oversaw money changing was always related to the high priest.

Other protests

• Rebellion of 66 C.E. (Josephus J.W. 2.426-427)
• Targeted:
  • Ananias (high priest)
  • Public archive - to erase debt record

the peasant rebellion of 66 C.E., wherein a group of insurrectionists, joined by the sicarii, took control of the upper portion of Jerusalem and immediately set fire to the house of Ananias the high priest,and finally moved to the public archive to burn loan contracts to end obligations of paying debts they did this to win popular favor This story tells us two things: in the minds of the peasants the high priesthood and debt are linked together in 1 single event. and (2) there was popular support for protests/action against the high priest and against lenders and debt holdersWhile it is possible that the rebels attacked Ananias because they believed him to be a Roman sympathizer, their secondary targets suggest that the rebellion had a distinctly economic goal; after burning the house of Ananias, the rebels went to the public archives and destroyed the money-lenders’ (tw◊n dedaneiko/twn) records of debt 42. The attacks on Ananias’ house and the debt records are related in Josephus’ account. It is most likely that the rebels hated the High Priest for the same reason they hated the money-lenders, both money-lenders and the High Priest stole from peasants for their own gain and caused debt 44.

Conclusion

So what does it all mean?

• Not anti-temple
• Symbolic protests
• Targets those who made a profit at the expense of the poor
• Populist - echoed popular sentiments against tax burden by Rome and Temple
• Likely would have been interpreted as aimed at priestly aristocracy
  • High priests interpreted the action as against them (Mark 11:18)

What does it mean if the money-changers were loansharks who took advantage of the poor? It likely means that Jesus' actions, when understood in light of it's first-century economic context would not have been understood as anti-temple or anti-judaism. Jesus was just one of many populist religious leaders who protested corruption at the temple. Jesus targets people who make money at the expense of the poor. He likely would have had popular support and people would know that it was the high priest and upper eschelons who actually made the profits and the money-changers and tax collectors were their pawns.

Questions?

dana.ouellette@concordia.ab.ca