Freethought & Rationalism Archive

the minnow · 11-12-2006, 03:01 PM

According to most Abrahamic religions, the justification given to the dietary restrictions is supposed to be due to geography/climate pragmatic reasons (I know I've heard this many times before, correct me if I've wrong.) since pigs and shellfish apparently spread diseases more in the Meditarrean climate (as opposed to the climates of Europe, Africa, China?).
Also, when did this prohibition start to come into place? Apparently the domestication of the pig would have to have happened first, reached the Mediterranean lands, then after a while people decided it was unclean and banned it?

John Kesler · 11-12-2006, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the minnow

According to most Abrahamic religions, the justification given to the dietary restrictions is supposed to be due to geography/climate pragmatic reasons (I know I've heard this many times before, correct me if I've wrong.) since pigs and shellfish apparently spread diseases more in the Meditarrean climate (as opposed to the climates of Europe, Africa, China?). Also, when did this prohibition start to come into place? Apparently the domestication of the pig would have to have happened first, reached the Mediterranean lands, then after a while people decided it was unclean and banned it?

James B. Pritchard, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), on page 10 states that "[t]he Egyptians viewed certain animals as devoted for a definite purpose and therefore taboo for other purposes, specifically as unclean for eating. The following text is a mythological explanation of a taboo against eating pork...The text first occurs in the coffins of the Middle Kingdom...and is continued in the Book of the Dead, being used for many centuries."

The Middle Kingdom was circa 2040-1640 BCE. Now, what is the origin of the Israelites' dietary rules? Although some claim that health concerns are the major factor, the Bible never makes this claim. A popular explanation, given by Mary Douglas, is the one that I find most convincing:

Quote:

...the underlying principle of cleanness in animals is that they shall conform fully to their class. Those species are unclean which are imperfect members of their class, or whose class itself confounds the general scheme of the world.
To grasp this scheme we need to go back to Genesis and the creation. Here a three-fold classification unfolds, divided between the earth, the waters and the firmament. Leviticus takes up this scheme and allots to each element its proper kind of animal life. In the firmament two-legged fowls fly with wings. In the water scaly fish swim with fins. On the earth four-legged animals hop, jump or walk. Any class of creatures which is not equipped for the right kind of locomotion in its element is contrary to holiness.

Anat · 11-12-2006, 10:59 PM

IIUC Finkelstein showed that most Canaanite sites showed lack of pork consumption - the taboo was older than the existence of Israelites as a separate entity (but the Philistines, who came from the Aegeian region consumed pork) - despite the fact that oak woods were common, thus providing an environment favorable for raising pigs (and to this day there are wild boars in the Carmel and Galilee).

Dietary taboos are not necessarily rational. The Greenland Norse avoided fish, which could have easily become an abundant protein source in their environment. New Guinea tribes have elaborate food taboos, with some foods taboo for men, some for women, some for certain lineages etc, to the point that some people suffer malnourishment as a result of observing so many taboos.

Food taboos can be the result of 'spiritual' ideas as suggested in the Mary Douglas quote, or a 'you are what you eat' magical thinking. They can also be the result of a historical accident enforcing a behavior - some shaman suffers food poisoning and makes the offending food taboo for generations to come.

At any rate, the Torah does not explain the rationale for its food taboos, so all we have is comparison to nearby cultures for the history of the taboo and anthropological work for food taboos in general.

butswana · 11-13-2006, 06:32 AM

Pigs need to be contained. They will go feral within weeks if allowed to roam. So you can't herd pigs. No bacon for the nomads. That's all the justification for I'd need to settle in one spot.
Bacon...........mmmmm. I bought two pounds of the thick sliced hickory smoked goodness yesterday. If there were a god, and he didn't like bacon, he could go fuck himself. I'd refuse to worship a god who didn't want me to eat bacon.

gstafleu · 11-13-2006, 07:44 AM

The Mary Douglas quote may explain shellfish, but not pigs who definitely have four legs. It would also make humans unholy!

As for pigs being unherdable, I'd think that that would be a reason for nomads not to have a rule about them, as they are effectively unavailable. So why bother with a rule?

Wasn't the explanation for the Greenland Norse not eating fish something like Real Norse Don't Eat Fish, but only animals you have to heroically catch (as opposed to scoop)? That worked in Norway where there were animals that are heroically catchable, but not in Greenland. Exit Norse Greenlanders.

Gerard

John Kesler · 11-13-2006, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

The Mary Douglas quote may explain shellfish, but not pigs who definitely have four legs. It would also make humans unholy!

As for pigs being unherdable, I'd think that that would be a reason for nomads not to have a rule about them, as they are effectively unavailable. So why bother with a rule?

I only quoted an excerpt from Douglas. If you follow the link that I provided above, you can read a fuller explanation. Here is the portion dealing with pigs:

Quote:

Cloven-hoofed, cud-chewing ungulates arc [sic] the model of the proper kind of food for a pastoralist. If they must eat wild game, they can eat wild game that shares these distinctive characters and is therefore of the same general species. This is a kind of casuistry which permits scope for hunting antelope and wild goats and wild sheep. Everything would be quite straightforward were it not that the legal mind has seen fit to give ruling on some borderline cases. Some animals seem to be ruminant, such as the bare and the hyrax (or rock badger), whose constant grinding of their teeth was held to be cud-chewing. But they are definitely not cloven-hoofed and so are excluded by name. Similarly for animals which are cloven-hoofed but are not ruminant, the pig and the camel. Note that this failure to conform to the two necessary criteria for defining cattle is the only reason given in the Old Testament for avoiding the pig; nothing whatever is said about its dirty scavenging habits. As the pig does not yield milk, hide nor wool, there is no other reason for keeping it except for its flesh. And if the Israelites did not keep pig they would not be familiar with its habits. I suggest that originally the sole reason for its being counted as unclean is its failure as a wild boar to get into the antelope class, and that in this it is on the same footing as the camel and the hyrax, exactly as it is stated in the book.

driver8 · 11-13-2006, 08:32 AM

Dr. Richley Crapo states:

http://cc.usu.edu/%7Efath6/Leviticus.htm

Quote:

Pigs were archtypically "unclean" animals in Hebrew symbolism. They were not just not ruminants (as, for instance, the horse is not, since it neither chews the cud nor has cloven hooves). Rather, pigs mixed characteristics of ruminants and non-ruminants by having cloven hooves but not chewing the cud. And mixtures are the bane of any taxonomist, since their very existence challenges the taxonomy in that some of their traits would place them in one category, while other traits would place them out of it. The problem presented by mixed cases is particularly problematic when the author of a taxonomy is thought to be God. Anything that violates the categories that God established is not just problematic, it is anathema. "Mixture" in Hebrew is tebhel, one of the words that is used to describe "abominations" in Leviticus--a book that consistently condemns mixtures of any kind as contrary to the demands of God's holiness: farmers are forbidden to plant the same field with more than one kind of seed, people are forbidden to clothe themselves with two different kinds of textiles, and hybrid animals are condemned as abominations. So pigs were particularly unclean symbolically.

11-12-2006, 03:01 PM	#1
the minnow Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 74	Abrahamic religions and unclean food According to most Abrahamic religions, the justification given to the dietary restrictions is supposed to be due to geography/climate pragmatic reasons (I know I've heard this many times before, correct me if I've wrong.) since pigs and shellfish apparently spread diseases more in the Meditarrean climate (as opposed to the climates of Europe, Africa, China?). Also, when did this prohibition start to come into place? Apparently the domestication of the pig would have to have happened first, reached the Mediterranean lands, then after a while people decided it was unclean and banned it?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-12-2006, 10:59 PM	#3
Anat Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: home Posts: 3,715	IIUC Finkelstein showed that most Canaanite sites showed lack of pork consumption - the taboo was older than the existence of Israelites as a separate entity (but the Philistines, who came from the Aegeian region consumed pork) - despite the fact that oak woods were common, thus providing an environment favorable for raising pigs (and to this day there are wild boars in the Carmel and Galilee). Dietary taboos are not necessarily rational. The Greenland Norse avoided fish, which could have easily become an abundant protein source in their environment. New Guinea tribes have elaborate food taboos, with some foods taboo for men, some for women, some for certain lineages etc, to the point that some people suffer malnourishment as a result of observing so many taboos. Food taboos can be the result of 'spiritual' ideas as suggested in the Mary Douglas quote, or a 'you are what you eat' magical thinking. They can also be the result of a historical accident enforcing a behavior - some shaman suffers food poisoning and makes the offending food taboo for generations to come. At any rate, the Torah does not explain the rationale for its food taboos, so all we have is comparison to nearby cultures for the history of the taboo and anthropological work for food taboos in general.

11-13-2006, 06:32 AM	#4
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	Pigs need to be contained. They will go feral within weeks if allowed to roam. So you can't herd pigs. No bacon for the nomads. That's all the justification for I'd need to settle in one spot. Bacon...........mmmmm. I bought two pounds of the thick sliced hickory smoked goodness yesterday. If there were a god, and he didn't like bacon, he could go fuck himself. I'd refuse to worship a god who didn't want me to eat bacon.

11-13-2006, 07:44 AM	#5
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	The Mary Douglas quote may explain shellfish, but not pigs who definitely have four legs. It would also make humans unholy! As for pigs being unherdable, I'd think that that would be a reason for nomads not to have a rule about them, as they are effectively unavailable. So why bother with a rule? Wasn't the explanation for the Greenland Norse not eating fish something like Real Norse Don't Eat Fish, but only animals you have to heroically catch (as opposed to scoop)? That worked in Norway where there were animals that are heroically catchable, but not in Greenland. Exit Norse Greenlanders. Gerard

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.