Diogenes the Cynic

Bit of an inside baseball question, but I'm trying to research some things for a book I'm working on. Do we have any good data on how and where sacrifical lambs were raised for the Temple?

I know that Bethlehem has a tradition (referenced, I think in Micah) of having been a place where Temple lambs were produced, but the archaeology of Bethlehem does not show the existence of a town there during the second Temple period (another reason Jesus could not have been born there).

Do we have any data on what kind of system was in place for producing sacrificial lambs. It seems to me that the production of thousands (tens of thousands?) of unblemished lambs was no small process. More than one small village could accommodate. What do we know, if anything,about how they did it?

stephan huller

it's probably the same in the substance as what currently goes on among the samaritans. contact Benny Tsedaka. he knows everything. there is also samaritan museum onl. if you had the money you could go to israel and photograph every aspect of the ritual it takes place in about two months

Diogenes the Cynic

I hadn't thought of looking at the Samaritans. Thanks for the tip.

sotto voce

One of the most powerful arguments for the Messianic role of Jesus is this prophecy of the birth of the Messiah, in effect recorded as fulfilled in three canonical gospels:

'"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."' Mic 5:2 NIV

All professional science today is expensive, has to find funds from somewhere, so may not always be funded in a strictly objective way. Archaeology, being necessarily politically and religiously implicated, is as least as prone to 'influence' as other disciplines, and it may be that it sometimes tends to find what archaeologists, or their sponsors, want to find.

Sarai

I don't recall where I read this, so I don't know how reliable it is, but I remember reading somewhere that in the 1st century at least some of the High Priestly families were involved in the raising & marketing of sacrificial animals.

As I said, I don't recall where I found this, but I'll do a search through my notes a little later and see if I can find more for you.

Regards,
Sarai

Diogenes the Cynic

what does that verse have to do with Jesus? He wasn't born in Bethlehem.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you where the money is on that score. Nobody's sponsoring digs to disprove Biblical claims.

Diogenes the Cynic

Thanks. I know this is kind of an obscure area, and I appreciate any help I can get. Google has not been especially helpful on this.

outhouse

Imagine say for passover when there was up to 400,000 people during the weekend, how much meat would be shared with the sacrafice to feed the people.

You would more then likely have buyers for the Sadducees bringing in herds that were raised in the local area just for these large events. Local herdsmen possibly Sadducees, would have been on contract. You would also have then sheared and bathed/rinsed down before they entered the temple.


I think your best bet is too look into where the stock yard would have been in realtionship to the temple to get a clue for the whole proccess in the first century.


They could have been driven from nearby villages, with a higher rejection rate, but a event like passover would have taken quite a bit of planning to pull off correctly.


These herders could have been wealthy people and could have been Sadducees themselves


You likely had a pair of goats that would be covered in blood to atone for the sins, one goat for the priest and his family and one for the people, they would take the goat to the edge of town and shove him off a cliff so he could not bring the sins back in the city. Sometimes the goat was sent off to the wilderness to symbolize the sins being carried off..





still researching more info

sotto voce

We know this because...

Quite. With the popular market flooded by the likes of Ehrman, Pagels and Dawkins, no guesswork is required.

So Oshri paid out of his own pocket. Amazing.

Diogenes the Cynic

For a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that there was no Bethlehem at the time, but also because the Gospel nativities making that claim are not only clear fabrications, but aren't even the same fabrications, and aren't even compatible fabrications.

There is also no early tradition of Jesus being born in Bethlehem (something GJohn even recognizes as a problem).
i don't see any archaeologists on that list, and if you want to get a real look at the popular market, go to any Barnes & Noble and look at the religion section. It's not exactly dominated by rationalism or scientific method. it's about 90% pure glurge.
Paid for what? Avirim Oshri works for the IAA. He didn't go lead any digs to disprove anything.

If you think there really is evidence of the existence of a town at the Bethlehem site in the 1st century, let's see it.