answers, showing that there was no fixed rule as to the employment of these profits, or, at

least, that it was no longer known at that time. Although four of these answers point to

their use for the public service, yet that which seems most likely assigns the whole profits

to the money-changers themselves. But in that case it can scarcely be doubted, that they

had to pay a considerable rental or percentage to the leading Temple-officials. The profits

from the sale of meat- and drink-offerings went to the Temple-treasury. But it can hardly

be believed, that such was the case in regard to the Temple- market. On the other hand,

there can be little doubt, that this market was what in Rabbinic writings is styled 'the

Bazaars of the sons of Annas' (Chanuyoth beney Chanan), the sons of that High-Priest

Annas, who is so infamous in New Testament history. When we read that the Sanhedrin,

forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, transferred its meeting-place from 'the

Hall of Hewn Stones' (on the south side of the Court of the Priest, and therefore partly

within the Sanctuary itself) to 'the Bazaars,' and then afterwards to the City,  33 the

inference is plain, that these Bazaars were those of the sons of Annas the High-Priest, and

that they occupied part of the Temple-court; in short, that the Temple-market and the

Bazaars of the sons of Annas are identical.

If this inference, which is in accordance with received Jewish opinion, be admitted, we

gain much light as regards the purification of the Temple by Jesus, and the words which

He spake on that occasion. For, our next position is that, fro m the unrighteousness of the

traffic carried on in these Bazaars, and the greed of their owners, the 'Temple- market' was

at the time most unpopular. This appears, not only from the conduct and words of the

patriarch Simeon and of Baba ben Buta (as above quoted), but from the fact that popular

indignation, three years before the destruction of Jerusalem, swept away the Bazaars of

the family of Annas,34 and this, as expressly stated, on account of the sinful greed which

characterised their dealings. And if any doubt should still linger in the mind, it would

surely be removed by our Lord's open denunciation of the Temple - market as 'a den of

robbers.'35 Of the avarice and corruption of this High-Priestly family, alike Josephus and

the Rabbis give a most terrible picture. Josephus describes Annas (or Ananus), the son of

the Annas of the New Testament, as 'a great hoarder up of money,' very rich, and as

despoiling by open violence the common priests of their official revenues.36 The Talmud

also records the curse which a distinguished Rabbi of Jerusalem (Abba Shaul)

pronounced upon the High-Priestly families (including that of Annas), who were

'themselves High-Priests, their sons treasurers (Gizbarin), their sons-in- law assistant-

treasurers (Ammarkalin), while their servants beat the people with sticks.'37 What a

comment this passage offers on the bearing of Jesus, as He made a scourge to drive out

the very servants who 'beat the people with sticks,' and upset their unholy traffic! It were

easy to add from Rabbinic sources repulsive details of their luxuriousness, wastefulness,

gluttony, and general dissoluteness. No wonder that, in the figurative language of the

Talmud, the Temple is represented as crying out against them: 'Go hence, ye sons of Eli,

ye defile the Temp le of Jehovah!'38 These painful notices of the state of matters at that

time help us better to understand what Christ did, and who they were that opposed His