 |
| "Shepherds Delight" by Neal Fowler is licensed under CC BY 2.0 |
The other day my dad asked me to sit and watch a video with him called "Bethlehem: Beyond the Christmas Story" from Day of Discovery, hosted by Jimmy DeYoung. I have no previous experience with this ministry or the scholarship of Mr. DeYoung, so I had no idea of what to expect.
DeYoung presents a theory that the birth of Jesus took place in a room that shepherds used to birth sacrificial lambs. This room is purported to be at the base of an edifice we know only through Scripture and some rabbinic writings--Migdal Eder (Tower of the Flock). According to him, the shepherds that were tending to their flocks in the fields of Bethlehem were no ordinary shepherds but rather levitically trained shepherd who watched over the flocks destined for Temple sacrifice. As such, he claimed, they would have been familiar with the prophesies about the messiah's birth in Bethlehem. Then he offered up another intriguing morsel to tie up all the loose ends.
This final claim really caught my attention because it sounded so odd to me. He stated that when these shepherds delivered a lamb, they would wrap them in swaddling clothes and lay them in a manger until they calmed down. They didn't want the disoriented lamb to thrash around and twist a limb and thus be ineligible for sacrifice.
The supposed proof that unified this theory was that the angels never told the shepherds exactly where to go in order to find the baby Jesus. According to this theory, they didn't need to because a message of messiah born+wrapped in swaddling clothes+lying in a manger=the birthing room at Migdal Eder. Interesting theory...and also a little too neat and tidy for my taste. Lambs wrapped in swaddling clothes sounds like the very kind of thing people would have latched on to and talked about a lot, so why am I just now hearing about it? It's not like I have my head in the sand. I read commentaries and other material on 1st century culture and customs--books by guys like Victor Matthews, Craig Keener, Kenneth Bailey, N.T. Wright and Ben Witherington III. So I set out to check the sources (if it gets overly detailed, this is because there are scores of blogs and websites that are touting unsourced hearsay in this matter).
To make this easier, let's break it down into individual claims:
1. Shepherds at Bethlehem were temple shepherds, caring for flocks destined for sacrifice.
2. There was a birthing room under Migdal Eder (the Tower of the Flock) in or around Bethlehem.
3. Shepherds wrapped new born sacrificial lambs in swaddling clothes and laid them in mangers to keep them from harming themselves and disqualifying themselves for sacrifice.
First of all, DeYoung uses Alfred Edersheim, a 19th century scholar who relied on late source material for many of his deductions. Since Edersheim's time the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi library have shed new light on the 1st century life and thought. Still, I wanted to be generous and thorough, so I pulled a copy of Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah to see what he actually wrote. His claim that Migdal Eder was linked in Jewish expectation to the Messiah finds it's source in the targum (translation/commentary) Pseudo-Jonathan on Genesis 35:21. However, current scholarship dates this targum to the 4th century A.D., so this doesn't necessarily tell us what 1st century expectation was.
Edersheim makes a case for priestly shepherds based on a couple of passages from the Mishnah (Shekalim 7:4 and Bava K. 7:7). These seem to check out and reputable scholars, such as Keener, have allowed for the possibility.
However, Edersheim says nothing about the structure of Migdal Eder (and neither do the Biblical texts Genesis 35:21; Micah 4:8), nor does he say anything about these priestly shepherds swaddling newborn lambs. So, I referred to all reputable sources in my personal library that might speak to Migdal Eder or priestly shepherds or swaddling. My conclusions have led me to believe that...
Mr. DeYoung, secondly, seems to use anecdotal evidence or pure conjecture to make this theory more appealing.
If such a practice as swaddling sheep and laying them in a manger were documented by historians, I am confident that I would have found some evidence for it in the works of careful and thorough commentators and historians as F.F. Bruce, William Barclay, Ben Witherington, Craig Keener, or N.T. Wright. However, the only place I can find any evidence of such a practice is on blogs, none of which cite any sources.
Also, DeYoung repeatedly claims that it was a 2-story stone tower, but where he gets this information is beyond me. He states that the remains of such a tower have not been discovered, but then he states that there was a room in the lower level of this tower where the shepherds would birth sheep. DeYoung admits that they have looked for the remains of this tower but could find none, so without archaeological or textual evidence for the design of such a structure I have no idea how he can make these claims.
If someone can prove me wrong, I would love to see hard evidence. Sometimes I feel like the Grinch, but thinking Christians need to be careful to investigate information before they pass it along. Don't take everything you read or see at face value.
That being said, my conclusions are that the status of this tale is: unknown. While there is some Biblical and extra-biblical evidence for such a place as Migdal Eder in the vicinity of Bethlehem and possibly tied to the revealing of the messiah, we have no proof or usable evidence for what such a tower would look like. Moreover, while the Bethlehem shepherds may have been priestly shepherds, we have no documentation on how they delivered their sheep. If I could re-title Mr. DeYoung's theory, I would have to call it Migdal Eder: Beyond the Evidence of the Christmas Story.
Also, DeYoung repeatedly claims that it was a 2-story stone tower, but where he gets this information is beyond me. He states that the remains of such a tower have not been discovered, but then he states that there was a room in the lower level of this tower where the shepherds would birth sheep. DeYoung admits that they have looked for the remains of this tower but could find none, so without archaeological or textual evidence for the design of such a structure I have no idea how he can make these claims.
If someone can prove me wrong, I would love to see hard evidence. Sometimes I feel like the Grinch, but thinking Christians need to be careful to investigate information before they pass it along. Don't take everything you read or see at face value.
That being said, my conclusions are that the status of this tale is: unknown. While there is some Biblical and extra-biblical evidence for such a place as Migdal Eder in the vicinity of Bethlehem and possibly tied to the revealing of the messiah, we have no proof or usable evidence for what such a tower would look like. Moreover, while the Bethlehem shepherds may have been priestly shepherds, we have no documentation on how they delivered their sheep. If I could re-title Mr. DeYoung's theory, I would have to call it Migdal Eder: Beyond the Evidence of the Christmas Story.
Sounds similar to some of the tales Ray Van DerLaan tells in his The Way of the Master series. You won't find them in any commentary or historical treatment. (I had an email exchange with Witherington about him once, he's very helpful)
ReplyDeleteYes. I have caught some inaccuracies and shoddy scholarship in Van DerLaan's work as well. I'm sure BW3 is unimpressed with both these guys. They know how to tell a story and speak well enough, but they seem to rely on Edersheim and late rabbinic writings for their 1st century background. There are a lot of myths circulating that I haven't been able pin down, but I'm a sucker for fact checking. I only wish mainstream Christian speakers were too.
DeleteI appreciate you writing this. I just heard this story at a Christian's Men's Conference in Fairview Michigan called Camp Barakel and I was taken aback at hearing it for the first time. I also want to be very scrupulous about what I hear and read so I'm glad you wrote this. I hope to give some feedback to the speaker Tom Harmon about some of the things you've written and researched on. If you find out anything more, please let us know.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you writing this. I just heard this story at a Christian's Men's Conference in Fairview Michigan called Camp Barakel and I was taken aback at hearing it for the first time. I also want to be very scrupulous about what I hear and read so I'm glad you wrote this. I hope to give some feedback to the speaker Tom Harmon about some of the things you've written and researched on. If you find out anything more, please let us know.
ReplyDeleteOther than physical evidence of the Migdal Eder tower much of this story does seem to have a basis in the scriptural account. I think we should be careful that we become so analytical as Christians that we miss what faith itself is all about. The evidence of things not seen!
ReplyDeleteOther than physical evidence of the Migdal Eder tower much of this story does seem to have a basis in the scriptural account. I think we should be careful that we become so analytical as Christians that we miss what faith itself is all about. The evidence of things not seen!
ReplyDeleteHi, Gary. Thanks for commenting. I am curious as to what you mean about this story having a basis in the scriptural account. If you mean that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, that shepherds came to his birth, and that Jesus was laid in a manger, Then yes this does have have basis in the scriptural account. But I failed to see how undocumented speculation about a tower and swaddling sheep in a manger have any basis in the scriptural account. I'm not trying to be overly analytical but when it comes to cute little tie-ins to the scripture I think that all too often Christians are pulled into Extra biblical ideas that have no grounding in history, exegetical proof etc. noticed that in the verse you referred to above there is the word evidence. Our faith is not based on speculation. Luke was very careful to say that all of his gospel was based on eyewitness account, Paul, John, and Peter all made sure to stress that they were not making up stories but rather basing their claims on what they had witnessed. There is always going to be an element of uncertainty to her face and there are always going to be things that we don't know for sure but I don't think that anything in the Bible tells us to throw her brain out the window. Rather we are called to study to show ourselves approved unto God. Like I said at the end of the article I'm not ruling out the possibility that this is true however I am saying that it is unverifiable and therefore probably unlikely to be true.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the article. I'm working on a Sunday school series on Luke 1 and 2, and am finishing up with Jesus birth this Sunday. I found the reference to Migdal Eder in some commentaries, and I also tried to research it, but, as you found, all the references kept coming up with the same source, Alfred Edersheim. I still think it's a fascinating theory, though. It seems pretty clear from scripture that Migdal Eder was was in or very close to Bethlehem. In Micha 4 says: "As for you, watchtower of the flock, stronghold of Daughter Zion, the former dominion will be restored to you; kingship will come to Daughter Jerusalem.” And that’s followd by the Bethlehem reference to the Messiah in chapter 5. Maybe that provides a connection to the the Messiah and the tower, and the shepherds who would in their fields near Bethlehem. For me, it’s a second reason that God might have chosen shepherds to announce the birth of the messiah. We think of the shepherds as some of the lowest in that culture. Dirty. Considered ritually unclean. We say that Jesus birth being announced to shepherds means that God reaches down to the lowest of low, and this is certainly clear from scripture regardless of that. But, maybe there is an even more compelling reason why God chose these shepherds. If they were the shepherds who birthed, cared for and certified the lambs for temple sacrifices, it seems the perfect symbol for them to be the first to see the final sacrificial lamb. For me, whether they swaddled their lambs, or whether Jesus was born in the bottom of the tower, is not as important.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this article as well. Like you, I could not find any scholarly evidence to support the practice of the passover lamb being wrapped in swaddling. I have been to the tower of the flock and there is no way Christ was born in the tower like DeYoung alleges. Consequently there is a threshing floor and a cave very close to there (within 100 yards. The cave has the Davidic symbol over the entrance. Above it there is the ruins of a late first-2nd century church building. it is also right next to the Roman Road that would have passed through the area. It can not be proved but it shows that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence to prove that Constantine's mother was looking for a great place to build the church of the Nativity and not the actual birth place of Christ. But I remind us all, no sites is Holy! God is!
ReplyDeleteJust today, I ran across Edersheim's reference to Migdal Eder in "Skethces of Jewish Social Life" (Ch.5, on the geography of Judea). Wanting to compare Edersheim's comments to Luke's account, I went back to the text and read. I see the detail in Luke that the "shepherds began saying to one another, 'Let us go straight to Bethlehem then, and see this thing that has happened which the Lord made known to us.' So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph..." Note the shepherds had to leave where they were and go, not to the fields in the outskirts of Bethlehem (where the watchtower was and where, presumably, they were already), but to Bethlehem proper, and they had to work to find Mary and Joseph. The implication is clear that the shepherds left one place and went to another place somewhat nearby to find Jesus. If Jesus were at Migdal Eder, Mary and Joseph would have first had to find the shepherds and Migdal Eder, then give birth to Jesus, not vice versa. I can give credence to Edersheim's relating Migdal Eder and shepherds tending a flock of sheep for sacrifice to Luke's Christmas story, and I personally can even find room to believe the shepherds would have taken their charges to the Temple in Jerusalem, so I don't find it hard to credit Edersheim for something good here. But I think DeYoug's proposition that Jesus was born at Migdal Eder is probably at variance with this detail in Luke. To me, that's a significant variance.
ReplyDeleteG. M. Gervin
Thank you for your skepticism in this matter...like the folded napkin left behind by the risen Lord, and the rope tied around the High Priest's ankle when he went in to the Holy of Holies, stories take on a life of their own and get placed side-by-side with pure doctrine from God's Word. That's why we need to be careful and do our due diligence to research the origin of these lovely little stories to see if they can be backed up by historical evidence. We are never wrong to go with scripture, but sometimes we get carried away with these stories and tie-ins.
ReplyDeleteBeing, as I am, a shepherd/goatherd, I can testify that the idea of newborn lambs thrashing about and hurting themselves is utter nonsense and could only be spoken from the same ignorant stance of those who always insist that sheep are remarkably stupid.
ReplyDeleteI only heard this theory recently and am myself investigating it before giving it credence. I also looked at a messianic Jew site, where many of these folks were brought up in life as Jews and know something of those traditions and they say nothing about it, and in fact, they follow what I have read before: that the swaddling clothes were more similar to the wrapping of a corpse in their stye and look to protect the baby.
Speculation is fine, helpful at times, and historical studies can certainly help clarify things the bible tells us, but we must always be careful to hold to only those things the Bible makes clear, to consider them only as doctrinal truth.
Except for one reference, comments are ignoring Micah 4:8 & Micah 5:2.
ReplyDeleteIf I am not mistaken, most four-legged animals get their offspring up and walking in short order after birth and it doesn't seem to me that swaddling them would really be helpful. After much study of this passage in Luke 2, I am convinced that the shepherds were just that- shepherds who would know how to handle newborn lambs. I am also unconvinced, based on he text, that Jesus was laid on a rock "manger" smooth though it may have been. The so-called "Levitical" shepherds would certainly have known if someone was camping out in their 'Migdal Eder'. The account in Luke 2 is certainly real but all this other information is speculation at best. I'll stick with the Biblical account as penned through divine inspiration.
ReplyDeleteThis Meme is circulating Facebook and has me fired up! As a shepherdess, Christian, biology teacher and spinner/weaver (currently raising 5 bottle fed lambs in kitchen), I have walked in the steps of shepherds before me, slept on piles of hay at night trying to get a weak lamb clueless ewe to nurse . . . there can be no shred of truth in the idea that shepherds would wrap lambs in cloth to protect them!! A healthy lamb is one that is licked and dried off by their mom snd stood to nurse within the first 30 minutes. Interferring in this process results in rejected lambs that will need bottle fed (not sure that was a thing 2000 years ago) or grafted onto another ewe. Lambs are very flexible and floppy to be able to get through the birthing process (lots of science behind this) and no need on the shepherd to stress about injury from flailing around. A lamb os a lamb until it gets its first adult teeth (around a year old but can be a few months after a year). Lambing is a battle of percentages and modern farmers want survival rates atleast above 80%. Mine hovers around 93%. There is just no way any shepherd would interfere with lamb bonding with the ewe. From a weaver's perspective, I take raw wool off my sheep and transform it into woven cloth using the "old fashioned" methods. Every scrap of cloth made this way is precious!!! It is beyond tedious and time consuming!! Their cloth was mostly made from linen which is just as difficult!! Raising flax, harvesting flax, soaking flax, cleaning fibers, combing fibers, spinning fibers, weaving fibers . . . this would take abiut a year from start to finish. People of that time had one set of clothes. I am quite certain that Deyoung did not consult or a historical weaver in his theory!! It makes no sense that lambs got wrapped in swaddling clothes. Beyond that, putting lambs in mangers would mess up the daily feeding routines -sheep are creatures of habit and no shepherd would ever change the order - they aren't smart and don't figure changes easily.
DeleteAn allegorical view of scripture might suggest that -- physical tower at Migdal Eder or not -- the Jewish population of the era of Jesus' birth were watchful and hopeful of signs of the messianic appearance. If some homes in Bethlehem had a higher level for family life and a lower level for sheltering animals or housing guests on occasion, maybe the shepherds (who tended flocks for the maintenance of future Passover lambs a year after each spring's lambing) who had experienced an epiphany at Migdal Eder, could have walked to Bethlehem after the angelic announcement, checked out the homes in the town that had "manger" facilities, and discovered the family with the newborn in its manger. On the assumption that we tend to find what we look for and hope for, it is reasonable to see in this story the validation of centuries of a faithful people's expectation. It is hard to believe that anyone would "swaddle" a newborn lamb, inasmuch as the ewes know pretty well how to clean and tend for them. It would seem natural for any mother of a newborn, any time, any place, to wrap it carefully and hold it close, rather than laying it aside alone in any sort of trough or makeshift cradle. The lower level space in a larger home in Bethlehem, where Joseph would have been welcome, would have been a likely place for Mary to have given birth, under the circumstances of hosting many visitors in Bethlehem due to the census. Mary probably would have had the benefit of the care of the women of the household and their guests before,during, and after the birth. The suggestion of the newborn as destined for "sacrifice" is one for personal consideration. Jesus' gospel teachings tend to emphasize mercy, not sacrifice, and as the gospel stories go, the Lamb submits willingly, yet the ultimate outcome is life, not death. We humans like to be "swaddled" in a comforting story of the tender care of the newborn, long-awaited Savior. Whether or not the tower was there for the shepherds to have a good view of their flocks for signs of any eye in labor, the Tower of the Flock it is a fitting symbol for the age-old, high expectations of the Children of Israel, whose leaders had always been shepherds.
ReplyDeleteI meant "ewe," not "eye." sorry for the typo. Interesting to think that the women in Jesus' family tree in Matthew were all radical, and several were directly tied to Bethlehem: Tamar, who creatively kept the tribe of Judah going through Levitical tradition by disguising herself as a temple prostitute, gave birth to twins by Judah; Perez became a leader who assisted Joshua in the battle of Jerico (a signal battle in the conquering of Canaan); Rahab - perhaps also a prostitute - was rewarded for assisting Joshua's forces by being chosen as a wife by Salmon (Salma?) who founded Bethlehem in Judea; Ruth, the foreigner, who returned to Bethlehem with Naomi and became the wife of Boaz, son of Salmon and Rahab; Boaz and Ruth begat Obed, who begat Jesse, who began David, the shepherd, who became King. Then, there's Bathsheba, loved by David, who bore Solomon, who built the temple in Bethlehem, close enough to Migdal Eder and Bethlehem, for the temple lambs to be sheltered there. Whether verifiable historically or not, all these story points can suggest an ongoing "tending and watchfulness" that maintained the self-understanding of the faithful as shepherds for the flock: caretakers and welcomers of the Messiah.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with your summation as I think that we as Christians are too quick to attach things that seems to give us some special credence, whether it can be proved our not. I would love for this to all be true, BUT, things need to be documented and referenced or I cannot call it a fact. Here is what I am willing to accept: 1) Migdal-Eder was a real place about a mile east of Bethlehem (a thousand Roman paces), and this comes from Jerome (2nd-3rd century which is early, but still is NOT 1st century or earlier), and he identified this area to what we today call the Shepherds Fields 2) I believe and accept that Migdal-Eder was the place prophesied by two old testament prophets that have significance to the birth of the Messiah, Jesus Christ, 3) what I take away from the scriptures is that Migdal-Eder, based on Micah, etc is that this is the place where the birth of the Messiah was to be PROCLAIMED, not where He was born, and that is certainly what happened with the angels and shepherds, 4) I cannot find ANY reference in wrapping the new born lambs in swaddling clothes in any early Jewish writings to include the Talmud, Mishna and Tamid, which is where it would be found. It is a great story, and a neat theory,and I keep seeing it being repeated, but never once referenced, and as such, it cannot be proved. It is wishful and it sounds great, but as Christians, we need to speak truth from facts and not embellish just because it sounds too good to pass up. If someone has a reference for this, please let me know, 5) There were probably "rabbinical shepherds" (based on the Mishnah) who certified that animals met temple requirements for sacrifice 6)it is not just Migdal-Eder, the Talmud says that ALL of the cattle found in the area of Jerusalem as far as Migdal-Eder were deemed to be holy and consecrated for temple service. So in short, I believe the birth of the Messiah was proclaimed to the Shepherds in the fields of Migdal Eder, per the old testament, and they went to Bethlehem to find the new born King per the New Testament. Those are facts that I can live with. And I think that is good enough.
ReplyDeleteYes, Edersheim is indeed a 19th century scholar, but a very good one. And nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi library shed any new light on the question of Jesus' birth or the practices of Bethlehem shepherds. Contrary to your assertion that the biblical texts say nothing about Migdal Eder, Genesis 35:21 literally says that after Jacob buried Rachel he “…spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar.” (KJV) The Hebrew is literally עֵ֗דֶר מִגְדַּל־ “Migdal Eder” or “Tower of the flock.” This same Migdal Eder is literally referenced by the prophet Micah 4:8 as the place where the Messiah would be born, which Edersheim speaks of as "a settled conviction."
ReplyDeleteTowers built of rock tend to crumble over time. The rock is scavenged for other projects. One would hardly expect to find archeological evidence for a pile of rubble. It would look like the many that still stand today.
Swaddling cloth is used to this day to facilitate the healing of injuries as standard first aid. It would have been handy to have around when tending animals, even in the first century. Deyoung is wrong about its use, not about its likely presence in the manger room. Luke 2:16 uses the definite article when referring to the manger, making it a specific, known location.
Thus, priestly shepherds maintaining a ceremonially clean birthing room, i.e, free of filth, in a known location called 'the' manger, who were familiar with the prophecy of Messiah's birth at Midgal Eder...this may not constitute the "hard evidence" you're looking for, but taken together, and since it comports with all we know historically, biblically and extra-biblically, I'd judge it good enough evidence for pious speculation.
Eusebius (Onom. 43:12) and other early Christian sources identify Migdal-Eder with Shepherd’s Field 1 1/2 miles east of Bethlehem. Identified with Siyan al-Ghanam, southwest of Jerusalem.
DeleteNegev, A. (1990). In The Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall Press.
Thank you for this. A woman I work with who tends to believe every Christian rumor told me about this claim with great assurance, and I wanted to check it out. What people write here accords with what I have found over the last two hours, and Leddy's account of the likely place of birth fits very well. Today I updated a post based on Kenneth Bailey's account of the birth, which touches on related aspects. https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2018/04/seeing-christmas-story-differently.html
ReplyDeleteIt would be a charming story if true. It is probably not absolutely impossible, though G. M. Gervvin's reading above, that the shepherds had to travel a bit to get to the baby, is a strong mark against it. But there just isn't much to support the notion of this extra clue that God snuck in the Scriptures.
I have just come across this. We have been living next to or with sheep for 20 years now and it does not make sense to me in any way, shape or form. I have used the Ask a Rabbi function of Chabad.org to ask about this. But this is based on my experience with sheep:
ReplyDelete1. As previously stated, newborn lambs do not thrash around. They tend to be very docile when they are born.
2. I can't imagine a newborn lambs staying swaddled. They have four legs and it wouldn't be comfortable to them; I imagine they'd kick like crazy to be let free.
3. If a swaddled lamb is placed in a stone manger and then kicks like crazy to be let free, they'd end up injuring themselves a lot more than if they were just left in the field.
4. I don't know of any sheep farmer who can tell with any accuracy when a sheep is going to give birth. So gathering pregnant ewes into a chamber and then 'birthing' the lambs there (when sheep are generally quite capable of giving birth without assistance) seems like a very odd thing to do. In my experience sheep like to be alone when they give birth and generally wander off from the rest of the flock. I imagine it would stress them more than help them to have humans there.
5. Lambs need their mothers. It's unnecessarily cruel to remove a lamb from its mother.
6. Many animals will reject their young if they've been handled prematurely by people. They will smell 'off' and not be recognised. It doesn't seem prudent to swaddle a newborn lamb because the chances of the mother rejecting it would be quite high.
7. It doesn't make practical sense: lambs still need to be fed (quite often!) So while the lamb is in the manger, how is it being fed? If the lambs are hand-reared that's an awful lot of work for a shepherd to take on when it's a job the mom can do better/more easily (there's a much higher chance of death for a hand-reared lamb than for a mother-reared lamb.) Also, the swaddling would need to be changed quite regularly because lambs wee and poo.
ReplyDelete8. Knowing that lambs wee and poo, why would you use a manger - which other animals eat out of? Jews had/have lots of ceremonial objects. Surely they'd have a ceremonial object for this instead?
9. But wouldn't it be easier to just put the mother and baby in a separate pen?
10. One account I read said that Mary used this lamb swaddling for her baby. Uh, no. Just no. Do you know any mother in the world that would take cloth that an animal had pooped on and use it to wrap up her baby - even if it had been cleaned? I and most other mothers I know would take the shirts off our own back before we'd let our precious babies touch something that an animal had pooped on.
11. According to Chabad.org: - Sacrificial lambs had to be at least 8 days old and had to have spent the first 7 days with their mothers (which makes it pretty hard to see how this could be true, if they're swaddled at birth!) but the general preference was for the lamb to be at least 30 days old.
12. Also according to Chabad.org: You could purchase sacrificial lambs from anyone - they didn't even have to be Jewish - so the idea that the lambs had to be from Bethlehem seems false.
o do this.
ReplyDelete13. Bethlehem and Jerusalem are 7 kilometers apart. This isn't a huge distance; but how do the lambs get from Bethlehem to Jerusalem? Are they driven up every week (obviously not driven up in a car but driven up as in rounded up and marched by the shepherd? Or possibly put in cages and transported in a wagon - but this would cause more bruising, not less.) The first lamb was sacrificed at dawn so I highly doubt we are supposed to believe someone got up at midnight, walked for two hours in the dark to get a lamb, and then walked back for two hours in the dark to get back in time. It would make sense that the sacrificial lambs were from closer to home than Bethlehem.
14. I spent way too much time this morning reading Chabad.org and what they have to say about sacrificial lambs. There are tons of passages that deal with lamb sodomy (if a lamb has been sodomised by a person it's not a suitable sacrifice) but I could not find anything about swaddling or putting them in mangers. Errr . . . I would really, really hope that sodomising lambs was not the sort of thing that happened regularly; so if the law covered such (hopefully) odd, not-very-common things like lamb sodomy, surely it'd say something about this practice of swaddling lambs and putting them in a manger?
15. The Old Testament has a lot of stuff about things that seem really tedious and unnecessary. So we're supposed to believe that this was how sacrificial lambs were handled, but they didn't bother writing it down in the Old Testament?
16. I know I've said this before but it bears repeating twice: This is mean! Anyone who has heard a baby lamb cry out for its mother or a mother cry out for her baby would know they need each other. Anyone who truly loved their animals would not separate them like this. We know the shepherds loved their animals. We know this because the sheep followed this - sheep only follow the shepherd if they love him/her and trust him/her. I can't imagine anyone whose job it is to take care of sheep, who cares about the animals, who loves them, would just separate them like that.
I know I've written a novel here. But this one just really bothers me because it flies in the face of what I know about sheep and lambs. As I said I have Asked a Rabbi if this was true and I'm waiting for a response . . . But to me the fact that they were allowed to (and known to) purchase sacrificial lambs from non-Jews is enough to almost invalidate the story, unless you want to suggest (as one blogger did) that this is a widely-held practice in the Middle East, that every single shepherd swaddled their newborn lambs . . . . but
The Rabbi's response - and I quote:
ReplyDelete"Honestly, I don't really know enough about sheep to have a meaningful opinion. But, in my view, this entire thing can be neatly cleared up by just asking for a source. If the claim can be sourced back to the Temple times or near enough to it, then it has to be considered. If there is no ancient source, then it is merely one of many baseless claims made by many different people.
I cannot think of a source myself, and I doubt there is one. But who knows?"
So, we can definitely rule out that it was some sort of law. Was it a practice? Common sense would rule that out for me. But I have also asked a group of experts in the New Testament if they can shed any light on the situation. I'll let you know if I get a response. But, definitely NOT law - and again, hard to see how any shepherd would think this makes sense . . .
I had never heard this MYTH until today and like the "Folded Napkin" story I was skeptical. I don't think Christians realize how passing on myths as truth is damaging to unbelievers and just adds another "Myth" to their resolve that Jesus is a myth too. If we want people to believe the TRUTH about JESUS we need to be cautious of spreading myths as truth.
ReplyDeleteMy thanks for all the writers on this subject. Having come across the story, I had designs on writing a historical - fiction piece based on it. Like so many others, I have only been able to source the story back to Eversheim. I've read the passages in the Mishnah he cited Copy that., and they are not in point. I have to conclude that this is a pious fiction. I am persuaded by the commentor who points out that passing on fictions, even pious ones, does damage to the real truth. Thus, regretfully is not I'm abandoning my project for something more useful.
ReplyDeleteI apologize for the errant words in my recent post. Next time, I will proof it before I hit "send."
ReplyDeleteI was intrigued by the doubt shown toward the tower theory and wonder if such a fuss was made over all the other fictions that hymnists, parents, story-writers, etc throw at Christions. Three wisemen? Angels singing? Following a star? Wisemen and shepherds together at a stable? Santa?
ReplyDeleteThere are many things to consider about swaddling lambs as soon as they are born. Most of my considerations are based on very impractical things, costly things and the natural things that happen to any animals not getting vutal excersize from the very moment of birth onward that if cut off will yield a lame lamb every time. Imagine the qualifying priest observing 250,000 lambs appear crippled from initial swaddling, no up front exercise that we know every mammal has to have in order to develop muscles to not be lame.
ReplyDeleteThe practice of swaddling had big problems. Who will either bring food, water to all the immobilized lambs, or carry them to grass, the to water?
Setting 250k prize lambs on the ground has many problems. What type of ground, wet, muddy, soil that stains. How many times will they be moved to food, water. When most land is covered with poop, urine now what. Altly, who's going to make wagons to transport them, feeding watering as they are moved. Whose going to supply materials, cloth, lumber, clean water to keep lambs clean. Not all the lambs were born at the mangers. Many will need to be moved for miles. Best to let them walk bcz the alt way forces a huge industry just to prevent lamb damage to a tiny fraction og them.
There are no historians who recorded any huge industrial procedure to support the added bother, problems.
Just think through what was theorized by the 4th centry rabbi who dreamed up the utterly foolish, impractical swaddling of lambs - who decided he could edit gospel script to assert "that Jesus was not born or rested in a manger".
I am a Pastor who shared this story with my congregation this Christmas and will be sharing it again with them this week as a POSSIBLY??? Not truth. Gods ways and thoughts are above ours. It's like the Red Sea crossing into the land of Midian. People believe by faith. Believing this is a POSSIBILITY will not send anyone to Hell. He was born, died, resurrected, and He coming back. Not believing that will send us to Hell. MY conclusion is, if it's TRUE cool, if it's not oh well cool thought! We will all understand by and by. Bye! Dad joke lol
ReplyDeleteI have been to an undisclosed site about 1.5 Miles from the Katisima (Bizantine Church ruins where Mary and Rachael allegedly sat) It is an ancient farming complex and very possibly the Tower of the Flock. There is clear evidence of a Byzantine era worship space there . It is about 1.2 miles from the traditional Shepherd's field. There is a tomb with and Akkadian inscription that says "Rachel" about 300 yards from that area. Rachaels tomb is supposed to be in Ephratha) There is a Roman road and mile marker within100 yards of the complex (Migdal Eder) ruins. There is so much more circumstantial evidence pointing to the Migdal Eder as the brith place of Christ. Why were early Christians worshiping there? Why was it torn down and the Church of the Nativity left? Who built the church of the Nativity? ( a converted pagan woman Helena) The Church of the Nativity is built in the highest place in Bethlehem and is clearly not the place where Jesus was born (the Pagan and Grecco Roman practice is to worship in the highest place.) I have tried to find the swaddling argument in antiquity and you are correct.
ReplyDelete