Why the Temple Incident is not historical and not marcionite

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Why the Temple Incident is not historical and not marcionite

Post by Giuseppe »


He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,

(Mark 11:15)

When Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, his anger burned and he threw the tablets out of his hands, breaking them to pieces

(Exodus 32:19)

Naturally, the Marcion's Jesus would have destroyed the new tables themselves.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why the Temple Incident is not historical and not marcionite

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Tables =/= tablets you fucking moron.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Why the Temple Incident is not historical and not marcionite

Post by Giuseppe »

Fallacy of the distinction without a real difference.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Why the Temple Incident is not historical and not marcionite

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Tables =/= tablets you fucking moron.
davidmartin
Posts: 1593
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Why the Temple Incident is not historical and not marcionite

Post by davidmartin »

You're half right Giuseppe, the temple incident is actually anti-sacrificial, suggesting that Jesus did not think animal sacrifices should any longer be offered (which puts him in a very narrow category in the ancient world, 99% of cultures sacrificed animals)
He wanted only grain offerings made and such-like (ie the food of John the baptist)
I recon this is one reason he got in trouble, now to expand on this further this aspect of his teaching was suppressed - why? The atonement doctrine hardly is in keeping with anti-sacrifice. Yet the incident remained in the books

So "Moses saw the calf" means animal sacrifice made him angry (when interpreted through the lens of the temple incident)
Post Reply