Sacrifice before and singularly after The Temple destruction

[MrMacSon]

The Second Temple High Priesthood liked animal sacrifices. They not only made money when the animal was bought, but kept the meat and the valuable hides.

Indeed...

Point to be made however is that to take the step to a human flesh and blood sacrifice as having a greater value is a step too far.

The step to take is from the limited value of animal sacrifices to the superior value of spiritual sacrifice.

This very simple logic upholds a humanitarian approach to the NT. While this step necessitates a heavenly, spiritual/intellectual 'crucifixion' it does not negate the importance, for the gospel writers, of a flesh and blood Roman execution/crucifixion. Theology is one thing - history of early christianity something else entirely.

With the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 AD/CE, the animal sacrifices ceased to be performed (because there was not have a proper place to offer them). At a time suffering of the [orthodox] Jews and their religion was, under the Romans and the effects of Hellenism, increasing.

Sacrifices were the primary means of atonement; of healing the breach in the covenant relationship and reuniting the people in communion with God. Sacrifice was believed to be efficacious in restoring a broken relationship; a symbolic means by which guilt was pardoned.

The Torah specifically commanded Jews to not offer sacrifices wherever they feel like it; they were and are only permitted to offer sacrifices in the place that G-d has chosen for that purpose: Deut. 12:13-14. The emerging rabbinic community declared that Torah study, prayer, and acts of loving-kindness would replace sacrifices. The practice was briefly resumed during the Jewish War of 132-135 CE, but ended after that war was lost though there were a few communities that continued sacrifices for a while after that time.

The Christian narrative of sacrifice of a messiah who will come again is, of course, similar to Jewish theology for a primary "mashiach" (anointed).

A man who will be chosen by G-d to put an end to all evil in the world, rebuild the Temple, bring the exiles back to Israel and usher in the world to come.
http://www.jewfaq.org/defs/messiah.htm

To have a narrative that provides sacrifice and a second coming would have had appeal. I think the resurrection is a version of the second coming.

[Stephan Huller]

There is no reason why the Jews couldn't have continued to sacrifice after 70 CE other than the possibility that circumstances (= the Roman state?) prevented that from happening. The Pentateuch has God only establish a flimsy portable tabernacle. You don't need to have a temple to follow the justification through sacrifices commandments. The easiest explanation for the legal justification for the sacrifices were stopped must have something to do with the argument that God only the ten commandments, Moses the rest of the 603. It has to be.

[MrMacSon]

I looked at that

Place of Sacrifice.
The primitive altar was made of earth (comp. Ex. xx. 24) or of unhewn stones (ib. xx. 25; Deut. xxvii. 5), and was located probably on an elevation (see Altar; High Place). The story in Genesis proceeds on the theory that wherever the opportunity was presented for sacrifice there it was offered (Gen. viii. 20, xxxi. 54; comp. Ex. xxiv. 4). No one fixed place seems to have been selected (Ex. xx. 24, where the Masoretic text, = "I will have my 'zeker' [ = "remembrance"]," and Geiger's emendation, = "Thou wilt place my 'zeker,'" bear out this inference). This freedom to offer sacrifices at any place recurs in the eschatological visions of the Later Prophets (Isa. xix. 19, 21; Zeph. ii. 11; Mal. i. 11; Zech. xiv. 20, 21), thus confirming the thesis of Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos") that the end is always a reproduction of the beginning.

The Paschal Sacrifice.
Under Moses, according to the Pentateuch, this freedom to offer sacrifices anywhere and without the ministrations of the appointed sacerdotal agents disappears. The proper place for the oblations was to be "before the door of the tabernacle," where the altar of burnt offerings stood (Ex. xl. 6), and where Yhwh met His people (ib. xxix. 42; Lev. i. 3; iv. 4; xii. 6; xv. 14, 29; xvi. 7; xvii. 2-6; xix. 21), or simply "before Yhwh" (Lev. iii. 1, 7, 12; ix. 2, 4, 5), and later in Jerusalem in the Temple (Deut. xii. 5-7, 11, 12). That this law was not observed the historical books disclose, and the Prophets never cease complaining about its many violations (see High Place). The Book of Joshua (xxiv. 14) presumes that while in Egypt the Hebrews had become idolaters. The Biblical records report very little concerning the religious conditions among those held in Egyptian bondage. The supposition, held for a long time, that while in the land of Goshen the Israelites had become adepts in the Egyptian sacrificial cult, lacks confirmation by the Biblical documents. The purpose of the Exodus as given in Ex. viii. 23 (A. V. 25) is to enable the people to sacrifice to their God. But the only sacrifice commanded in Egypt (ib. xii.) was that of the paschal lamb (see Passover Sacrifice). In the account of the Hebrews' migrations in the desert Jethro offers a sacrifice to Yhwh; Moses, Aaron, and the elders participating therein (ib. xviii. 12). Again, at the conclusion of the revelation on Sinai (ib. xxiv. 5), Moses offers up all kinds of sacrifices, sprinkling some of the blood on the altar. At the consecration of the Tabernacle the chiefs of the tribes are said to have offered, in addition to vessels of gold and silver, 252 animals (Num. vii. 12-88); and it has been calculated that the public burnt offerings amounted annually to no less than 1,245 victims (Kalish, "Leviticus," p. 20). No lessthan 50,000 paschal lambs were killed at the Passover celebration of the second year after the Exodus (Num. ix. 1

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... -sacrifice

[outhouse]

I looked at that

Few small problems I see, is trying to use older Jewish sources and context for the Hellenist multi cultural version of Judaism that was being rebuilt by the Pharisees after the fall.

That and a lot of the sources your using go back to 1909 ish at the earliest don't they?

[outhouse]

. I think the resurrection is a version of the second coming.

Maybe it did for some. Not all, nor most, unless you have some evidence that helps build you case.

The resurrection IMHO started spiritually and progressed to a physical one. Because the text uses both, you may have your work cut out for you on how and when the concept evolved with a second coming.

[MrMacSon]

There is some reference in some OT texts (Hebrew Bible/LXX) to the Nazarites taking a vow not eat meat and to make other sarifices.

Could the Jesus narrative have arisen out of the inability to make animal sacrifices after the fall of the Temple?

[DCHindley]

There is some reference in some OT texts (Hebrew Bible/LXX) to the Nazarites taking a vow not eat meat and to make other sarifices.

Could the Jesus narrative have arisen out of the inability to make animal sacrifices after the fall of the Temple?

You may want to look at this closer.

Nazarites (not derived from Netzer) is someone who takes a vow and as a sign of it will not drink wine, shave their hair or contract corpse impurity, until the vow is fulfilled, at which time they shave the hair from their heads and offer it as a sacrifice.

This is a specialized kind of vow, but vows in general could involve abstinence from other foods or activities as well. The kind of strict asceticism that is attributed to James the Just by some early church writers is NOT required by a Nazarite vow.

DCH

[MrMacSon]

Sure. but I don't know if James the Just, or attributions to him, is/are relevant.

[DCHindley]

Sure. but I don't know if James the Just, or attributions to him, is/are relevant.

I am not aware of any OT texts that mention Nazarites who do not eat meat or make "other" sacrifices (whatever "other sacrifices" means).

There are plenty of references in OT, Josephus and Philo of folks who eat fruits and nuts and avoid meat, and there are the Essenes, and the Therapeutae who in one place are said to refrain from offering sacrifices along with everyone else in Jerusalem (preferring to do them at their own appointed times and/or in their own manner, although this may not mean they did not sacrifice in Jerusalem, or perhaps did so at the temple established in the 2nd century BCE by Onias IV in Egypt).

However, I do not believe that any of these were also said to be Nazarites.

DCH

[MrMacSon]

Numbers 6