John 2

re: Probably twice

I have long felt that Jesus bracketed His ministry with the same message: You go through the motions of worshipping My Father, while all you do is dishonor Him. Of course they were mad. His people still don't like that message.

Speaking of John as an historical document, and considering the possibilities, I have wondered along these same lines. While the synoptics record no early temple event and John's gospel no later event, this particular reconciliation, in my loosely-held estimation, falls in the category of "historically plausible." As money-changing was an ingrained part of the Mosaic covenant, it is altogether likely that Christ's act in the temple would've been largely ignored until he was later vindicated by Jerusalem's destruction--I think, looking at the account as an historian, such a reconciliation is at least possible, and plausible. But my education lies less along the lines of historical research, and more along the lines of literary analysis; it's easier for me to find John's meaning in the way John's gospel is structured, and to find John's intent shaping his accounting. But that does not mean the historical angle should be neglected, either.

What I'm trying to say is, "Good point." :)