Dlx2

I'd like to see a Christian/Bible literalist reconcile this passage

with this photograph



and the story of Jesus and the moneychangers.

seven8s

I want the truth, not your cunning craftiness.

Lógos Sokratikós

I don't see an altar. Is it behind that crowd?

Dlx2

The specific sacrificial altar is gone, but accounts suggest that the entire temple of Herod was constructed of hewn stone. This differs distinctly from the Temple of Solomon, and rather significantly from the command in Exodus. Hewn stone was considered profane because it had been struck by iron and forced into shape. Placing a holy altar in the middle of a profane structure should profane it following any of the "logic" employed within the Bible (i.e. someone living in an unclean house was made unclean, someone wearing unclean fabric was thus made unclean, etc). Additionally, it needs to be pointed out that Jesus was objecting to money-changing in the temple not on the altar. The Temple of Solomon was not profane, as it was constructed of cedar rather than stone. The Temmple of Herod was already profane due to its construction. If Jesus was in fact God, he would have known this already and would not object to money-changing within the walls of the temple compound.

spin

Of course, when the gospel says the moneychangers event took place in the temple, it means in the enclosure, not in the building itself. Amongst other things the priests would not have allowed him in, as it was reserved for priests. There were a series of courts outside the building itself, each more selective, including the women's court and the court of the Israelites (the men obviously). Moneychangers would have been in the first court for there was the chance of ritual impurity in the exchange of money. The wailing wall is actually outside the temple completely. It's just a part of the enclosure wall. The dome of the rock is basically where the temple was, which is up and to the left of the picture. The little dome to the right is at the level of the enclosure, so the wailing wall is at the foot of the enclosure. The altar was up at the level of the temple and as they described it as being made of unhewn stone, there's little reason to doubt that it would have been made that way: it wouldn't have been that difficult and it seemed to be of significance for it to be that way. The attempt to make Herod's temple profane seems bound to fail because it is based on the wrong information. There are no regulations about the enclosure wall's construction.


spin

Ben C Smith

Oh, come now, spin. This is just shameless apologetics on your part, trying to evade an obvious difficulty in the biblical record. What is next for you? Defending the house church site in Capernaum as the house of Peter and the unearthed Galilean craft as his fishing boat?

Ben.

mountainman

It was all "Rendering unto Caesar" in the first instance,
never mind about who gets second place in the order.

Notably, Constantine wins hands down for the person
in antiquity who spent the most money on construction
projects in stone - most of them Christian Basilicas.

Nice photo btw.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

squiz

I see no apologetics on spins part here, but rather a vain attempt to manufacture a spurious inconsistency on your part. It says the altar shall not be of hewn stone, not the temple walls or structure. It seems to be quite clear. Look up the word altar in a dictionary perhaps.

I don't think that the rock inside the dome is thought to have been the altar, but it is a good image anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...PD-OLD.jpg.JPG

Ben C Smith

Nor do I. I believe you have misinterpreted me. My statement was tongue-in-cheek, I assure you.

Ben.

Syler Kite

The temple? Yes. The altar? No. (well, highly unlikely to be more scientific)

This would make sense except that hewn stones were not "profane" or "impure" in and of themselves. An altar made of hewn stones, however, would have been against Biblical laws.

I know of sources that talk of the temple's altar of unhewn stone such as Josephus (who, in Against Apion, quotes Hecataeus - so, this would not have been about the Herodian temple's altar). One of the Maccabees refers to the restoration of the Solomonic temple's altar using unhewn stones, this would have been "shortly" before Herod's temple.

The Mishnah tractate Middoth apparently also mentions an altar of unhewn stone. However, I am not sure of the dating of this tractate and have not had time to try and find it. Does anyone know to which temple's altar this tractate refers?

Anyway, the altar was most likely (in my mind definitely) of unhewn stone whereas the temple and surrounding area were mostly made of hewn stone (however, I believe I recall that the stone could not be and was not hewn at the temple site - also by Biblical law).