Historical Commentary Although some have objected that the Romans would probably not have permitted a man the crowd acknowledged King to enter the city to cheering crowds, Price (2003, p 292) argues that what is really going on is a bit of Markan irony. The crowd is simply giving out the Hosanna! as part of the usual Passover wish that the Davidic messiah would come and restore the Davidic monarchy. And sure enough, in front of them, is the Davidic messiah -- but the crowd doesn't know. To them, Jesus is just one of tens of thousands of entrants to the city for the Passover festival, who happens like thousands of others, to be arriving on a donkey. In Mark's scene, the "crowd" does not acknowledge that Jesus is the messiah, whereas in Luke, they clearly do. However, the vast distance being traversed here during Jesus entrance, as well as the presence of both straw and garments, may be signals that Mark did not frame it the way Price is arguing. Note also that in Mark there is no crowd. v9 says "And those who went before and those who followed cried out..." implying that the speaking is done not by a crowd but most probably by disciples who have come into Jerusalem. with Jesus. No crowd is ever directly mentioned, just the "many" who spread their garments on the road or lined it with branches. Regardless of how one reads the entry, the salient fact is that the Romans had a low tolerance for even the slightest whiff of sedition, and would have dealt with it ruthlessly. As Brent Kinman (1994) concedes while attempting to defend the historicity of the incident, even among scholars who accept the historicity of the story, the reality of Roman touchiness on the subject of sedition creates apprehension. Kinman goes on to argue that since Pilate's coming up to Jerusalem must have been an extravagant affair, Jesus' entry must have paled beside it. While this approach is the distilled essence of speculation, Kinman does bring up one common point, that the Gospel portrayals need not be read as having the crowd in its entirety acknowledge Jesus the savior. Against this is Gundry's observation of the sheer length of Jesus dramatic entrance, as well as the details of the crowd laying things at his feet the whole way. In any case, as we have seen, this passage is created off of the Old Testament. At the level of the overall framework, beginning with the arrival in Jerusalem the parallels to the Elijah-Elisha Cycle become ever denser. Here the writer of Mark begans to rely more and more on that cycle for his plot structure and the details of his story (Brodie 2000, p92):   Mark 11:7-10 2 Kings 9:13 The people spread branches in front of Jesus The officers spread their cloaks for Jehu The people acknowledge Jesus as messiah The officers acknowledge Jehu as king cheering cheering The E-E Cycle also explains some of the stranger details of this passage.   Mark 11:11 2 Kings 9:14-21 when Jesus arrives, it is too late to do anything Jehu's triumph is delayed by peace talks The writer of Mark has also modeled this on the sequence in Zechariah 14. Duff (1992), who connects the entrance into the city to Zech 14, summarizes that text below. Note how the sequence in this text resembles this section of the Gospel of Mark, with the entrance into Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives, down a processional highway, accompanied by his holy ones. "The structure of Zechariah 14 can be outlined as follows. First, the threat against Israel is described: the nations gather against Jerusalem (vv. 1-2). Second, the conflict between YHWH and his enemies is described and YHWH's victory is implied (v. 3). This is followed by YHWH's appearance on the Mount of Olives, after which YHWH prepares a processional highway by the rending of that mountain (vv. 4-5). On this highway, he and his holy ones enter the city of Jerusalem (v. 5b). YHWH's entrance into the holy city results in a new order of creation (vv. 6-8). Next is mentioned the manifestation of YHWH's universal reign (vv. 9-11), followed by a description of how the enemies of YHWH and his people will be destroyed (vv. 12-15). The Gentiles who survive this destruction will recognize YHWH's universal sovereignty and will themselves come to Jerusalem to observe the feast of Tabernacles (vv. 16-19). Finally, the passage ends with a scene in a sanctified Juresalem, where the distinction between the sacred and the profane has been overcome (vv. 20-21)."(p58) At the detail level, the passage is a creation off of the sequence in 1 Samuel 9 and 1 Sam 10: 1 Sam 9 3 Now the donkeys belonging to Saul's father Kish were lost, and Kish said to his son Saul, "Take one of the servants with you and go and look for the donkeys." 4 So he passed through the hill country of Ephraim and through the area around Shalisha, but they did not find them. They went on into the district of Shaalim, but the donkeys were not there. Then he passed through the territory of Benjamin, but they did not find them.  5 When they reached the district of Zuph, Saul said to the servant who was with him, "Come, let's go back, or my father will stop thinking about the donkeys and start worrying about us."  6 But the servant replied, "Look, in this town there is a man of God; he is highly respected, and everything he says comes true. Let's go there now. Perhaps he will tell us what way to take." (NIV) and 1 Sam 10:2-7: 1 Sam 10:2-7 2 When you leave me today, you will meet two men near Rachel's tomb, at Zelzah on the border of Benjamin. They will say to you, 'The donkeys you set out to look for [1 Sam 9] have been found. And now your father has stopped thinking about them and is worried about you. He is asking, "What shall I do about my son?" 3 "Then you will go on from there until you reach the great tree of Tabor. Three men going up to God at Bethel will meet you there. One will be carrying three young goats, another three loaves of bread, and another a skin of wine. 4 They will greet you and offer you two loaves of bread, which you will accept from them. 5 "After that you will go to Gibeah of God, where there is a Philistine outpost. As you approach the town, you will meet a procession of prophets coming down from the high place with lyres, tambourines, flutes and harps being played before them, and they will be prophesying. 6 The Spirit of the LORD will come upon you in power, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person. 7 Once these signs are fulfilled, do whatever your hand finds to do, for God is with you. (NIV) The scene may also represent a common convention of Greek drama, the hyporcheme, as proposed by Bilezekian (1977): "The hyporcheme was a well-known dramatic convention practiced especially by Sophocles. It consisted of a joyful scene that involves the chorus and sometimes other characters; takes the form of a dance, procession, or lyrics expressing confidence and happiness; and occurs just before the catastrophic climax of the play. The hyporcheme emphasizes, by way of contrast, the crushing impact of the tragic incident."(p127) Duff (1992) also points out that the procession surrounding the entrance of the warrior-king into the city was originally modeled on Greek epiphany processions, in which the deity enters the city. Frequently the entering King is either greeted as a god, or performs sacrifices that "function as an act of appropriation" (p60). This pericope consists of two chiastic structures looking more or less like this: A And when they drew near to Jerusalem, to Beth'phage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, and said to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately as you enter it you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat; untie it and bring it. If any one says to you, `Why are you doing this?' say, `The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.'" B And they went away, C and found a colt tied at the door out in the open street; D and they untied it. D And those who stood there said to them, "What are you doing, untying the colt?" C And they told them what Jesus had said; B and they let them go. A And they brought the colt to Jesus, and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it. B And many spread their garments on the road, and others spread leafy branches which they had cut from the fields. B And those who went before and those who followed cried out, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming! Hosanna in the highest!" A And he entered Jerusalem, and went into the temple;  and when he had looked round at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. The presence of the supernatural juxtaposed with OT creation at both the level of detail and of the plot structure, along with the presence of Mark literary creation (the doublet of v1-6), and the conventionality of the entry in Greco-Roman culture indicate that there is no support for historicity in this pericope.

Historical Commentary This pericope's chiastic structure is impossible to clearly specify. The wrter's A brackets are typically geographical movements, and there is nowhere else in the gospel where Jesus makes so many movements in so short a volume of text. A And he entered Jerusalem, and went into the temple; and when he had looked round at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve. B On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. C And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. C When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.And he said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." B And his disciples heard it. A And they came to Jerusalem. or this. A And he entered Jerusalem, and went into the temple; and when he had looked round at everything, as it was already late, B  he went out to Bethany with the twelve.  A On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. B And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. C When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. C And he said to it, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." B And his disciples heard it. A And they came to Jerusalem. or all the movements may constitute a single A bracket. That would work very nicely. But the writer did not leave us enough examples to unravel his thinking on this matter. This pericope is the "A" section of one of the Gospels' most famous chiasms, an A-B-A' structure that sandwiches the Cleansing of the Temple between the Cursing of the Fig Tree.  The presence of the supernatural and creation from the OT indicate that there is no support for historicity in this pericope.

Historical Commentary The structure of this periocope is a simple chiasm: A And they came to Jerusalem. B And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, C and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons; D and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the temple. D And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, `My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have made it a den of robbers." C And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and sought a way to destroy him; B for they feared him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching. A And when evening came they went out of the city. This is perhaps the most important single event in Mark outside the Crucifixion, for in many interpretations it triggers the authorities' actions against Jesus. Even when rejected as historical, scholars believe that there is an underlying kernel of history. Therefore it will be analyzed in some detail. There are several reasons to think that the author of Mark invented this story. First, there is the historical improbability of the Temple Cleansing. The Temple area itself is tremendous in size, more than 12 football fields across and capable of holding tens of thousands of people. Looking at these facts, Paula Fredriksen (2000) has recently explained why she has altered her position on its historical probability: "...approximate measurements that give a sense of the sheer size of the place: the total circumference of the outermost wall ran to almost 9/10ths of a mile; twelve soccer fields, including stands, could be fit in; when necessary (as during the pilgrimage festivals, especially Passover) it could accommodate as many as 400,000 worshipers. . . . . It was not until I started walking around the Temple Mount that I began to understand how huge the Temple area - specifically its outermost court, around the perimeter of which, beneath the protection from sun or storm offered by the stoa or the Royal Portico, "those who sold" could be found - must have been. Its very size shrank the significance of Jesus' putative action, and prompted the question: If Jesus had made such a gesture, how many would have seen it? Those in his retinue and those standing immediately around him. But how many, in the congestion and confusion of that holiday crowd, could have seen what was happening even, say, twenty feet away? Fifty feet? The effect of Jesus' gesture at eye-level would have been muffled, swallowed up by the sheer press of pilgrims. How worried, then, need the priests have been?" Price (2003, p295) points out that the Temple covered 35 acres, the size of 34 football fields. As Josephus notes, there were Roman auxiliaries on call in the Fortress Antonia right nearby. The moneychangers undoubtedly had their own guards and servants, and so did the local priests. It is therefore unlikely that Jesus could have generated an incident there that was prolonged enough for anyone to notice. There were too many warm bodies to squelch it before it got rolling. A further problem, as Buchanon (1991) points out, is that the Temple was not merely the main religious institution of the Jewish religion, it was also the national treasury and its best fortress. The Temple's importance should not be underestimated: all three sides in the internal struggle during the Jewish War fought to gain control of the Temple. Not only is it highly unlikely that Jesus could have simply strolled in and gained control of the Temple, it is also highly unlikely that anyone would have permitted him to leave unmolested after such a performance. An additional problem is provided by the awkwardness of v17, which has Jesus teaching as he is tossing out the moneychangers. It is almost comic to imagine Jesus shouting out parts of the Old Testament while overturning benches and preventing people from carrying the sacrificial vessels around an area that is thousands of square yards in size. Note that Jesus turns over the tables as if there were only a handful of them, rather than some tables. David Seeley (2000) notes many of the practical arguments against historicity: "Consider the obstacles to taking the temple act as historical, starting with the practical ones. For instance, how would one man drive out all the traders and money changers? ... Did not even one merchant get angry at having his table overturned and having his accounts scattered along with his money? Did not even one wrestle with Jesus and try to stop him? If so, did no others join in? Did Jesus' disciples help him out? If they had, it would have looked like a virtual takeover of the area by a gang that had suddenly shown up from Galilee, a region noted for its revolutionaries. Would the Romans really have stood idly by and done nothing? Mark says that the crowd protected Jesus, but it has already been pointed out that many in the crowd could hardly have been very familiar with him. ... As for prohibiting vessels, how would one man keep everyone in such a large area from carrying them? ... Did he run back and forth confiscating them? If his disciples helped out, then once again we must imagine a group of Galileans suddenly showing up at the temple and effectively taking over--an unlikely prospect, for the reasons just mentioned." In addition to the commonsense issue of implausibility, as Crossan has noted in The Birth of Christianity, a story may be labeled invented when, on every level, it shows obvious literary derivation. Speaking of the Passion Story, he writes: "The individual units, general sequences, and overall frames of the  passion-resurrection stories are so linked to prophetic fulfillment that the removal of such fulfillment leaves nothing but the barest facts..." (1998, p.521).  The Temple Cleansing is one such story; indeed, the combination of OT creation and Markan redaction leaves nothing at all, not even the barest facts. At its lowest level, the individual details of the story itself, the Temple Cleansing is composed of two basic strands, one of Markan redaction, the other of OT literary invention. The Temple Cleansing in part is taken from the story of Nehemiah and the Temple, and borrows from it two key details: First, Jesus overturns the benches of the moneychangers, just as Nehemiah was displeased and threw Tobias' furniture out of the rooms that had wrongly been given to him (Nehemiah 13:9). Troughton (2003, p14) writes: "The vivid and physical action of Nehemiah is mirrored in the gospel accounts. Mark's representation of Jesus has him 'overturning' ( katestreyen) the furniture of the sellers and the money-changers. In this case, the furniture is identified specifically  as tables ( trapeza) and seats (kaqedra), which are also potentially 'household' goods." In the next verse (13:9) Nehemiah returns the sacred vessels back to the rightful place, just as Jesus prevents the vessels from being moved out of the precincts (Mk 11:16). "Nehemiah 13.4-9 details the threat to the Temple cult through accommodation of "foreign influences," notes Troughton (2003, p6), clearly paralleled in Jesus' attack on the merchants as a den of robbers. Further borrowing of details from the OT is apparent in the key line that Jesus' utters: 'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'  But you have made it 'a den of robbers.' -- which combines Isaiah and Jeremiah. The word "robbers" used here is better translated as "insurrectionists." Some have seen a reference to the occupation of the Temple by Jewish Zealots during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The Jeremiah passage containing 7:11 Mark quoted in v17 is also quoted by Jesus Ben Ananias in Book VI of Josephus Wars. Some exegetes have argued that Jesus may be modeled after Jesus ben Ananias. Earl Doherty (1999, p248-58) has identified other OT cites that may form the basis for this passage, including Malachi 3:1, Hosea 9:15, and Zechariah 14:21. Malachi 3:1  "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come," says the LORD Almighty.(NIV) Hosea 9: 15  "Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious. (NIV) Zechariah 14:21 Every pot in Jerusalem and Judah will be holy to the LORD Almighty, and all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them. And on that day there will no longer be a merchant in the house of the LORD Almighty. (NIV)[some manuscripts read "Canaanite" for "merchant."] Of these, the most likely is Zech 14:21, a classic example of Markan hypertextuality, which is Temple-focused. There the nations of the world are pictured worshipping at the Jerusalem Temple. Further, Zech 14:4 will be cited later in the gospel. Numerous exegetes have linked Zech 14:21 to this passage (Duff 1992, p65). Krause (1994) has also detected the shaping hand of Hosea 9 behind the Fig Tree and Temple sequence. Note how the sequence contains both the fig tree and a driving out of individuals from the Temple. 10: Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree, in its first season, I saw your fathers. But they came to Ba'al-pe'or, and consecrated themselves to Ba'al, and became detestable like the thing they loved. 11: E'phraim's glory shall fly away like a bird -- no birth, no pregnancy, no conception! 12: Even if they bring up children, I will bereave them till none is left. Woe to them when I depart from them! 13: E'phraim's sons, as I have seen, are destined for a prey; E'phraim must lead forth his sons to slaughter. 14: Give them, O LORD -- what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15: Every evil of theirs is in Gilgal; there I began to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more; all their princes are rebels. 16: E'phraim is stricken, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit. Even though they bring forth, I will slay their beloved children. 17: My God will cast them off, because they have not hearkened to him; they shall be wanderers among the nations.(RSV) The other details of the story are redaction of the author of Mark and contain no items of historical value.  At the next level, the level of intermediate structure, the writer of Mark is again using the OT. The story of Jesus closely parallels the Elijah-Elisha cycle in Kings. Thomas Brodie (1998, p92) explains. At the climax of the two legend cycles, the Temple is cleansed (Jesus drives out the moneychangers, Jehu kills the priests of Ba'al). Both are annointed (2 Kings 9), undergo accession with cloaks on the ground (2 Kings 9), wait before taking over (2 Kings 9:12-13, Mark 11:11), challenge the authorities (2 Kings 9:22-10:27), Mark 11:11 - 12:12), and money given to the Temple (2 Kings 12:5-17, Mark 12:41-44). As Brodie puts it (p93):  ..."the basic point is clear: Mark's long passion narrative, while using distinctive Christian sources, coincides significantly both in form and content with the long Temple-centered sequence at the end of the Elijah-Elisha narrative."  At the highest level, the overall story structure, the writer of Mark is again relying on the Elijah-Elisha cycle. Jesus north-to-south movement generally parallels the movements in the Elijah. Where Jesus departs from this movement, so does Elijah. As the EEC narrative approaches Jerusalem, so does Jesus, and the parallels intensify. A second narrative source for this might well be 1 & 2 Maccabees, where in 11:1-9 the writer parallels Simon's entry into Jerusalem in 1 Macc 13, and then in 11:15-19 he parallels the story of Onias III and the Temple vessels in 2 Maccabees. To sum up: Markan redactional elements are obvious in "On reaching Jerusalem" (v15) and v18 (the conspiracy and crowd amazement) and v19. The whole passage is typical of the writer of Mark. "Overturning the tables" and "not permitting vessels to be carried out of the courts" are taken from Nehemiah. These two details would not be transmitted by oral tradition; they exhibit clear literary dependence. Hence, the writer of Mark had to have added them via OT construction. Jesus' words cite two different OT authors and cannot be oral transmission; they exhibit literary dependence. The use of the Elijah-Elisha narrative for both the plot of the current set of pericopes and the overall framework of Mark is another example of literary construction that could not have been transmitted. The entire "event" smacks of either Markan redaction or literary dependence on every level.  Here is the text broken out in detail: Mark 11:15-19 (YLT) Source 15: And they come to Jerusalem, and  Markan Redaction, Jesus having gone into the temple, Mal 3:1 began to cast forth those selling and buying in the temple,  Zech 14:21, Hosea 9:15 and the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling the doves, he overthrew, Nehemiah 13:8,  16: and he did not suffer that any might bear a vessel through the temple, Nehemiah 13:9 (perhaps 2 Macc) 17:  and he was teaching, saying to them, ` "teaching" is Markan redaction, as is the presence of a crowd. Hath it not been written -- My house a house of prayer shall be called for all the nations, and ye did make it a den of robbers?' Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11 18: And the scribes and the chief priests heard, and they were seeking how they shall destroy him, for they were afraid of him, because all the multitude was astonished at his teaching; Markan redaction. The use of the Temple Cleansing as a plot device, other Markan elements include "scribes and chief priests", amazement of multitudes 19:  and when evening came, he was going forth without the city. Markan redaction. A final knock against this is event is that Josephus does not mention it, nor does Paul (neither Jesus' Temple Cleansing nor his predictions of the Temple's destruction), nor, apparently, did Justus of Tiberias, the historian of Galilee (who does not mention Jesus at all). No source other than the Gospels mentions this event. Paula Fredrikensen (2002) notes: "We could see the same thing by looking directly at Mark. Mark uses the action in the Temple to set up the Sanhedrin trial which in turn sets up the dramatic Christological confession, thence Pilate, thence death. By having John as a counter-story to think with, we see that much more clearly how plot-driven the Markan denouement is, how Jesus’ temple action serves basically to bring the priests on stage, and how the beautifully-crafted, historically impossible Sanhedrin trial serves chiefly as a vehicle for Christological proclamation. In summary, although judgments of outright fiction are generally implied rather than stated in this commentary, here it is clear that what we are looking at is a fiction from the hand of the writer of Mark. The silence in the external sources, the presence of OT creation in what is generally considered the "historical information" in this pericope, the markers of the writer's redactive habits, the presence of literary structures that culminate the Elijah-Elisha Cycle in the Gospel of Mark, and the strong historical implausibility of this event indicate that there is no history whatsoever in this pericope.

Historical Commentary The structure of this is fairly clear: A And when evening came they went out of the city. B As they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away to its roots. C And Peter remembered and said to him, "Master, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered." C And Jesus answered them, "Have faith in God. Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. B Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." A And they came again to Jerusalem. Thomas L. Thompson (2005) writes: "In considering Jewish biography formation, the succession of the three scenes in Mark 11 and Matthew 21 are built on three thematic elements, shared by both writers: the inauguration of the kingdom, the cleansing of the temple and discerning purity of heart. These scenes and the themes they illustrate find their origin among tropes belong to ancient Near Eastern royal ideology. Access to this tradition comes most directly from prophetic literature and the David traditions of the Psalter, Samuel, and Chronicles."(p79) The commentary on prayer is set up by the supernatural events of the fig tree. The idea of forgiveness of tresspasses was a common one in antiquity. This pericope completes an A-B-A' chiasm set up by the previous interaction with the fig tree. Because of the presence of the supernatural and the banality of the injunction to forgive, as well as the relationship to Paul, there is no support for historicity in this pericope.

Historical Commentary This entire pericope consists of Markan redaction, with the usual themes of chief priests, scribes, and elders out to get Jesus. It is highly implausible that determined enemies of Jesus would have accepted the answer given in 11:33; it is unlikely therefore that an account of remembered history would simply have broken off without a far longer exchange. The exchange shows a variant on the chreia form, in this case the teacher is shown besting his adversaries with a clever question rather than a clever riposte. This pericope begins a block of 5 controversy stories that doubles the block of 5 controversy stories in Mark 2 and 3. It is also John the Baptist's last appearance in Mark. The implausibility of the situation should become apparent if one thinks about the political sensitivity of the question Jesus has just asked: Jesus has just queried the Jerusalem Temple leadership what they think of someone the writer informed us 5 chapters ago was executed by Herod, the potentate of the territory next door, who held his Tetrarchy by Roman largesse. The writer of Mark seems unaware of the political implications of having Jesus asking the Jewish authorities whether they think a recently executed political prisoner was a real prophet. The focus instead is on the source of Jesus' authority. Mark McVann (1994) reads this as an honor-shame conflict. The Temple's honor, slandered by Jesus' Cleansing of it, must be avenged, and so the authorities challenge Jesus hoping to impugn his status as a true prophet, but instead Jesus shames them. McVann observes that Jesus does this by referring to John's Baptism, which was as insulting to the Temple as Jesus' own acts, since it represented a way for the people to be brought into the community of God without the Temple structure as an intermediary. The Jesus Seminar (Funk et al 1997) observed: "Mark 11:27-33 is an anecdote. The words attributed to Jesus are in the style of a retort or rejoinder and so sound like Jesus may well have sounded on such occasions. However, they do not take the form of a parable or an aphorism, which means that it is difficult to imagine how they could have been transmitted during the oral period, except as part of this story...The Fellows designated the words black on the grounds that they were elements of a plausible scene that were nevertheless invented by the storyteller."(p100) This pericope is part of a structure that extends into the next chapter; A And they came again to Jerusalem. B And as he was walking in the temple, the chief priests and the scribes and the elders came to him, and they said to him, "By what authority are you doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do them?" C Jesus said to them, "I will ask you a question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men? Answer me." D And they argued with one another, "If we say, `From heaven,' he will say, `Why then did you not believe him?' But shall we say, `From men'?" -- they were afraid of the people, for all held that John was a real prophet. E So they answered Jesus, "We do not know." E And Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things." D And he began to speak to them in parables. "A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and dug a pit for the wine press, and built a tower, and let it out to tenants, and went into another country.When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants, to get from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. And they took him and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. Again he sent to them another servant, and they wounded him in the head, and treated him shamefully. And he sent another, and him they killed; and so with many others, some they beat and some they killed. He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them, saying, `They will respect my son.' But those tenants said to one another, `This is the heir; come, let us kill him, And the inheritance will be ours.' And they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard.What will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. C Have you not read this scripture: `The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes'?" B And they tried to arrest him, but feared the multitude, for they perceived that he had told the parable against them; A so they left him and went away. The implausibility of the situation both from a political standpoint, and the fact that Jesus has just trashed the Temple, as well as the presence of several habitual features of the writer's style, all indicate that there is no support for historicity in this pericope.