Sheshbazzar

I have reviewed this presentation repeatedly, and do not find any explanation, or even any mention at all as to why Yahweh himself in Genesis 18:7-8 did not follow the Jewish dietary restrictions of kashrut.

Please provide the exact quotation, and where it is that you find the explanation of why Yahweh in Genesis 18:7-8 did not observe the Jewish dietary restrictions of kashrut.

And I am not particularly interested in listening to christian perversions of Jewish texts.


ששבצר_העברי
Sheshbazzar_The Hebrew

Chili

In simple logic you ignored the word 'mother' and specifically "it's mother" and a kid is a 'young goat' not to be ignnored in the equasion. So in the major you are boiling in mothers milk and you just can't put it's kid in it but must be fat first . . . and that makes a lot of sense to me because God wants no babies but the fasttest ones only.

arnoldo

There is no direct explanation why the dietary restriction was broken in the Genesis account. . however there is perhaps a parallel explanation in Matthew 12: 1-4 why the Sabbath was broken in different accounts 'cuz some people were just hungry. . .

John Kesler

Jeffrey H. Tigay, writing for The Jewish Study Bible, offers the following regarding the prohibition as it's found in Exodus 23:19:

As mentioned in the post above quoting Lewis, the command also appears in the version of the Decalogue found in Exodus 34, at verse 26, and in each verse, the prohibition is preceded by the command to take the "firstfruits of the soil" into the "house of Yahweh." However, its third appearance, as the OP mentions, occurs in Deuteronomy 14, which discusses which animals may be eaten and forbids eating an animal that has died on its own. Bernard M. Levinson, also commenting in TJSB, says that a law which originally applied specifically to "pilgrimage festival offerings" has been broadened to be a general law about food preparation. Some scholars state that the practice is forbidden because the Canaanites prepared their meat in milk, but it might also be because, like the unclean animals, it was a type of category confusion to "kill" with a substance that is supposed to sustain life.

arnoldo

The point remains that apparently a dietary proscription was violated in the Genesis account. By way of comparison Kenneth Kitchen presents that another Deuteronomical commandment was not followed in a Genesis account. Namely, Deuteronomy 21 calls for the eldest son to receive a double portion blessing from the father no matter the son's behavior. In Genesis 49:3, the eldest son does not get the double portion blessing nor any other son. Thus, the lack of anachronisms regarding dietary proscriptions or blessings upon the elder son presented in Genesis supports the hypothesis that Genesis was written at an earlier date than Deuteronomy. Kitchen writes,

DCHindley

Has it occurred to anyone that the Law was not supposedly given until the time of Moses? Previous to that, the patriarchs could do whatever they pleased.

DCH

Sheshbazzar

Although Genesis 49 is couched in much obscure and flowery poetical imagery, Genesis 49:22-26 is quite clear that the highest favor and blessing by Jacob of his twelve sons fell upon Joseph, and the rest of the text continues and reinforces that Joseph inherited the favored position, Which by The Law of inheritance would have been the portion of Reuben, Jacob's first-born son.

In Genesis 43:12-15 Joseph's brothers are reduced to humbly bringing his double portion of the family wealth to him with their own hands,
And in 48:22 Jacob affirms that he has given Joseph alone, out of all of his sons, 'one portion (of the land) above that of your brothers.'

Joseph 'received' the double portion both of the family silver and gold, and also of the land which his father Jacob had obtained.

Further, Joseph received the double blessing of Jacob upon his two children above all the children of his brothers, in the laying on of Jacob's hands upon the heads of these two in the blessing of Ephraim and as Manasseh saying; "In your name shall ISRAEL pronounce this blessing, saying; "Elohim make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh:"
And so it is unto this day a blessing amongst all of the children of ISRAEL; "Elohim make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh:"

That is to say Favored, Blessed, and Prosperous- in a portion above all Israel's other children, although these also are the Children of Israel, and co-inheritors of the same Promises, -only in lesser measure.

Thus the highest wish and honor one could extend to any person of ISRAEL, is to bless them with the saying; "Elohim make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh:"
To be among those select, assured by the determinate will of Elohim of their position and favor in the annuls of the Children of ISRAEL.



The Patriarchs perhaps. (every man being the law unto himself, and his own judge) But should not Yahweh Elohim himself, the ALL-KNOWING, know of all things to come?
Yahweh when he visited Abraham knew every one of those 'righteous' Commandments and 'perfect' Laws He would soon give.
Why was He, the PERFECT and UNCHANGEABLE Elohim violating the very Laws that HE proclaimed as being PERFECT and EVERLASTING ?
He was not ignorant, nor able to claim any ignorance, concerning them, or of exactly how they would ever be interpreted by HIS servants.

His violation must have been made with full knowledge, that by the coming views and rulings of the Jewish religion, that what He was doing that day was a violation of those rules, every one of which he was fully informed and familiar with from the beginning of time.


I see this as evidence that YHWH foreknew what a stupid travesty the religion of Judaism would eventually make out of The Law.





.

sotto voce

But let's have the whole verse.

'Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.'

In Israel, eating was associated with both health and morality, the intention being that it was to be understood that good health was a consequence of good morality. Animals found dead were liable to be health hazards, particularly in warm climates. Kids cooked in their mothers' milk were spread on the fields of some surrounding people in the belief that this would induce their deities to produce a good harvest the following year. The Israelites, however, were told that poor harvests were more likely to be a sign that they had been morally defective, and they certainly should not suppose that such an action as spreading meat would have any beneficial effect on harvest. (Though of course there was a very small increase in nitrogenous and other mineral soil content from that practice.)

It's quite possible that cooking kids in their own mothers' milk for consumption was permitted in Israel, though it's hard to see why anyone would want to do that, if only because such offspring would not have even been weaned and gained a sensible weight. One could cook young goat in other milk, if one really wanted to cook in that way. Surely, a decent wine or vegetable stock was the best way to good goat casserole.

So what we have in this verse is Yahweh saying, "Look, I will keep you from nasty diseases and food poisoning. But don't mess about with crooked behaviour, because it won't go unnoticed. You're supposed to be holy, an example to the others, ok?"

Sheshbazzar

Where did you find this information?

John Kesler

I, too, would like a source for this claim.