(emphasis mine).The Jerusalem temple in the gospels is a literary temple. We know there was also a real Jerusalem Temple, but we are not encountering that real Jerusalem Temple (in reality) when we read the gospels. We are reading the word "temple" and reading a literary narrative or account of events happening at that literary temple setting.
As it turns out, the literary temple does appear to be more like the size of a common pagan temple (relatively small) and not like the historical Jerusalem temple that was extremely large in area. (The literary Jesus is able to stop ("literally") ALL literary concourse through the literary temple.)
Does gMark say Jesus was able to stop all commercial activities in the temple? I do not think so.
This is what I wrote in http://historical-jesus.info/74.html
Let's first look at Mark's version of the "disturbance" in the temple:
Your reaction, please.11:15-16 YLT "And they come to Jerusalem, and Jesus having gone into the temple, began to cast forth those selling and buying in the temple, and the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling the doves, he overthrew,
and he did not suffer that any might bear a vessel through the temple,"
Notes:
a) Mark's gospel is the first one written and the least elaborated.
b) Only gJohn (generally thought the most dubious of all gospels) has Jesus clearing the temple area (with a whip that he made himself from cords on the spot!).
Where does it say Jesus cleared the temple square in gMark? Nowhere.
And all the four statements are general, that is without any indication of how many merchants, buyers, money-changers, seats of sellers of doves and bearers of vessels were affected by Jesus' actions. It can be only a few, some, many, or all. But because the temple court(s) of the Gentiles were so large, few might be the right answer and there is nothing in gMark to indicate otherwise.
General statement?
Just like me saying "I visited the cities in/of Italy". Nobody would think I visited all the cities in/of that country. And even if I did sightseeing in a few of those, I still would not be lying.
Another example:
"When I was in Boston, I argued with the taxi drivers".
Again that statement does not indicate I did that with all the cabbies of this city, or even all the ones I came in contact with. But if I argued with a few of them, but above what a person (including myself) would normally do, that would be sufficient for me saying so.
Cordially, Bernard