In the Gospel of Mark, we read the following incident in the ministry of Jesus:
And they come to Jerusalem: and
Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in
the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of
them that sold doves; And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel
through the temple. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My
house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a
den of thieves. (Mark 11:15-17)
Kerithoth 1.7 in the Mishnah has some
important parallels to this pericope. It reads:
If a woman suffered five issues
that were in doubt or five miscarries that were in doubt, she need bring but
one offering, and she may then eat of the animal-offerings; and she is not
bound to bring the other offerings. If she had suffered five miscarriages that
were not in doubt or five issues that were not in doubt, she need bring but one
offering and she may then eat of the animal-offerings; and she is bound to
bring the other offerings. Once in Jerusalem a pair of doves cost a golden denar.
Rabbi Simeon b. Gamaliel said: By this Temple! I will not suffer the night to
pass by before they cost but a [silver] denar. He went into the court
and taught: if a woman suffered five miscarries that were not in doubt or five
issues that were not in doubt, she need bring but one offering, and she may
then eat of the animal-offerings; and she is not bound to offer the other offerings.
And the same day the price of a pair of doves stood at a quarter-denar
each. (Robert Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with
Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes [Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1933; repr., Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011], 564)
As James Crossley notes in his monograph arguing for a very early
(late-30s to 40s) date for Mark:
This strongly parallels Jesus’
concern and is attributed to a first-century Jew alive c. 10-80 CE so it is
perfectly reasonable to assume that Jesus’ attack on dove sellers could reflect
pre-66 Judaism and, for what it is worth, the attitude of the historical Jesus.
It shows at least that the rabbinical passage accurately reflects a
first-century concern in Mark: these are two independent traditions claiming
that dove sellers are corrupt in some way and both attribute this concern to
the same period. This suggests that there were people concerned with the price
of doves at the time of Jesus and that such rabbinical material should not be
dismissed because it is late, either this or posit a remarkable coincidence. (James
G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest
Christianity [Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series
266; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 63-64)
