64 Wally V. Cirafesi a. Harmonization with Luke The first possibility is that the use of ἐποιήσατε in Bezae represents an attempt to harmonize Matthew’s and Mark’s account with that of Luke’s. Wong suggests this when he says In Mt 21, 13, both the simple aorist (C D W f13) and perfect (f1) are found through the influence of parallels in Luke and Mark. By contrast, Luke has no other variant...[T]he occurrence of the variant forms in other gospels indi- cates that the word ποιεῖν is influenced by one another among the parallels9. However, a difficulty arises regarding harmonization with Luke when one considers the minimal role the temple cleansing episode plays in Luke’s discourse. The episode in Luke gets very little attention and contains little detail in comparison to the Matthean and Markan accounts10. The overturning of tables and chairs (Matt 21,12//Mark 11,15) and the comment made in Mark 11,16 that Jesus did not allow anyone to bring a σκεῦος through the temple are omitted in Luke11. Only a brief reference is made to the casting out of “the sellers” (τοὺς πωλοῦντας), which quickly transitions into Jesus’ speech frame in v. 46. All of this points to the likelihood that the temple cleansing is, as a whole, rather insignificant in Luke’s narrative in comparison to Matthew and Mark. What matters most to Luke in these two short verses is Jesus’ declaration from written Scripture (γέγραπται) that God’s house will be known as an οἶκος προσευχῆς12. If this is indeed the case, it is unlikely that the scribe 9 Wong, The Temple Incident, 131, n. 225. 10 For a fuller discussion of this, see Cirafesi, Verbal Aspect in Synoptic Parallels, 94-95. 11 Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark, 28-30 notes that there has been considerable debate over the meaning of σκεῦος in Mark 11,16. J. Massyngberde Ford argues that it refers to “money bags” by tying σκεῦος to the money-changers and the fact that the temple was used as a bank (“Money ‘Bags’ in the Temple [Mark 11:16]”, Bib 57.2 [1976] 249-53). Tom Holmén suggests that the word’s meaning is ambiguous (Jesus and Jewish Covenant Thinking [BIS 55; Leiden 2001] 309). Gray, however, offers a convincing argument for understanding σκεῦος as “cultic vessel”. In this sense, Jesus was interrupting the entire cultic process of offering sacrifices in the temple. J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKKZNT; 2 vols.; Zürich 1989) II, 129 also interprets σκεῦος in a cultic sense. In any case, Mark’s inclusion of this detail points toward the greater significance of Jesus’ act in this Gospel in comparison to Matthew and Luke. 12 I.H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids 1978) 719; Ådna, Jesu Stellung zum Tempel, 168, 168 n. 35. See John Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53 (WBC 35C; Dallas 1993) 935, who says, “Luke severely abbreviates in a way that draws the emphasis strongly onto the biblical citations in 19:46”. However, see Brent Kinman, Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem in the Context of Lukan Theology and the Politics of his Day (AGAJU 28; Leiden 1995) 150-53, where he suggests that despite the brevity of the account, Luke emphasizes three things in his temple cleansing narrative: (1) that Jesus’ actions do indeed represent a “cleansing” of the temple; (2) that the political implications of the event are marginal; and (3) that the event should be closely connected to Jesus’ entry (παρουσία) into Jerusalem and the city’s subsequent response to him.