(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.) In Fourth Gospel, in contrast to Synoptics, scene in which Jesus cleanses temple is located near outset of his public ministry (John 2:13-22). This is perhaps most evident and problematic difference between Johannine and Synoptic accounts, but in this episode several minor details also stand out as unique to Johannine version. One of these is Jesus' use of a whip to clear temple: ... (2:15). This action understandably precipitates an angry response, but only in John is action of Jesus followed immediately by reaction of the Jews. They question his authority, ask for a sign, and scoff at his explanation. Jesus impresses them as presumptuous and arrogant, a whippersnapper.1 I. DISCOMFITING IMAGE OF JESUS If medieval and Renaissance artists are any indication, so-called temple cleansing must be one of most important episodes in life of Jesus.2 But some readers of John's account have felt unease with image of a violent, whipcracking Jesus. This discomfort may have been heightened by fact that word employed by evangelist, ..., can refer to a whip consisting of a thong or thongs, freq[uently] with metal tips to increase severity of punishment.3 It is a loanword Latin flagellum (whence English flagellate).4 The Greek noun appears only here in NT and never in LXX. The related verb ... occurs only in passion narratives (Mark 15:15; Matt 27:26), describing Pilate's scourging of Jesus prior to crucifixion. Surely Jesus himself had not inflicted a similar punishment on people and animals in temple precincts! For both historical and narrative reasons, it is highly unlikely that Jesus did so. Historically, as commentators have often noted, weapons were forbidden in temple area.5 The Mishnah forbids one to bring a staff (lqm, maqq.l) into temple (m. Ber. 9:5). While Roman soldiers under Pilate's command certainly had flagella, Jews would not likely possess them and certainly not in temple precincts. If Jesus had wielded such an instrument in a crowd at Passover festival, his behavior would have been tolerated by neither Jews nor Romans. His arrest would likely have been immediate. Whatever degree of force that was used, action took on nothing of riotous character that would have attracted swift and sharp intervention Roman garrison in Antonia fortress.6 More importantly, narrative itself disallows notion that Jesus brandished a flagellum. The instrument was fashioned (...) on spot materials that were available. The latter did not likely include leather thongs, bone fragments, or bits of metal. Moreover, John describes whip as constructed ..., from Originally these were rushes or reeds, akin to rattan or wicker material. This material might have been available as animals' bedding or perhaps was already fashioned into ropes or traces. Otherwise, ... may refer to ropes of other material, as in case of lines used to attach a skiff to a larger, seagoing ship in Acts 27:32, only other NT usage. (The word is used twentyeight times in LXX to refer to ropes, cords, or measuring lines.) In either case, whip wielded by Jesus was clearly a makeshift tool, scarcely equal to Roman instrument of torture.7 Nevertheless, it has been suggested that, beginning with early manuscript tradition of Gospel, some scribes felt constrained to qualify or soften impact of term ... The two oldest textual witnesses, Bodmer papyri p66 and p75 (dated approximately 200 and third century respectively), have word ... before ..., indicating that Jesus fashioned something like a whip of cords. The reading with ... is further supported by a few Greek uncials ranging third to eighth centuries, several minuscules, including Family 1, as well as Vulgate and nearly all Old Latin tradition. …