FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-06-2013, 06:50 AM   #81
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Hillsborough, NJ
Posts: 3,551

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar View Post
I think that the centralization of the cult at the first temple was a problem because you couldn't have a hamburger without sacrificing the animal at the temple.
The Law did not specify that all of any herders animals needed to be brought to the Temple, and each one presented as a sacrifice.
The Law only required the 'firstling' of the flock. Ex. 13:12-13, 34:19-20, Lev 27:26-27, Num 18:15-18, Deut 15:19-20.
The rest of the edible animals could be slaughtered for food by their owners where they lived, and even certain of the required sacrificial 'firstlings' could be redeemed (bought back for a price, or by a substitute acceptable for exchange)
First born sons were required by Law to be redeemed (bought back) for five shekels of the Sanctuary (Num 18:15-16)
Friedman's assertion about the slaughter of animals has bothered me for a long time.

The concept of slaughtering animals ritualistically is easy to understand and believe when the sacrifice is local.

Clearly, the centralizing of the cult, the elimination of the priests in the countryside/ high places/whatever, would lead to astounding logistics issues. This leads us to the question of how animals were slaughtered.

I think what Friedman is saying is that there was no procedure to slaughter animals outside of the temple cult structure. If he is wrong, it means nobody understands how the system worked.
semiopen is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:53 PM.


This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.