• chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 days ago

      The actual story of the money changers is worse than most people know.

      See, as part of their religious observance, the ancient Hebrews made a pilgrimage to the Temple. This was a mandatory part of their faith, much like the Hajj is for modern Muslims.

      Those who were too poor to bring their own sacrifice could buy one at the Temple, but the Temple didn’t take the coin of the realm (the Roman coins), they only accepted Shekels.

      So, the Money Changers. They set up in the Temple itself and were fleecing pilgrims of all their money.

      In comes Jesus, who flipped tables and broke out the whip, and less than a week later he was crucified.

      And this is the only part of the bible that I believe is 100% historically accurate. A peace loving Rabbi threw a fit over the Money Changers and was crucified for it.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 days ago

        I had understood it to be even worse:

        The sacrifices at the temple were expected to be pretty much perfect, and had to be found acceptable by the temple priests. So the merchants would get “pre-blessed” sacrifices that they would sell at exorbitant prices to the pilgrims, who would have the sacrifices they brought deemed “inadequate” by the priests.

        So if you brought an animal sacrifice, you’d still have to buy another (costly) animal. If you brought money, you’d be forced to exchange it at a significant loss.

        The whole thing was an obvious scam, and Jesus was killed over it (and the rest of his message). I don’t believe he was God Incarnate, but I’m still a big fan of Jesus the man.

        I’m pretty confident that all would have gone about the same way in this era.

    • spittingimage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah, it was the moneychangers and the stall keepers that tolerated them.

      It was a religious duty to contribute money for the upkeep of the temple. So people would come from out of town and try to hand over their cash and the priests would say “we can’t accept foreign coinage… go talk to that dude over there with the heavy pockets, he’ll help you”. And the moneychanger would convert their currency, but not without keeping a fat percentage for himself.

      The lesson (as I read it) is that setting yourself up as a gatekeeper and forcing people to pay you in order to do the right thing is an especially odious behaviour, even if it’s legal.