Re:I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
by ars on Thursday October 15, 2015 @01:53PM
(#10394742)
Judging by the downvotes people are more interested in the story than in the truth, I'll try one more time, but I suspect it's pointless.
>>There is NO law requiring death from eating pork!
> I don't see anywhere in the article that even remotely suggested there is. And I certainly made no such claim.
You wrote: "even in the face of death, a Jew must refuse pork in order to remain true to his people"
So yes you did make such a claim, and no, it's not true. In the face of death a Jew MAY eat pork, and is actually REQUIRED to eat pork. Except in a public case like in the story.
> Eleazar was killed for refusing to eat pork .... I think pork has at least something to do with that.
If he was ordered to eat an apple from a tree less than 3 years old the story would play out identically. The pork is completely incidental, yet the author makes it central to his narrative.
> The eating of pork products was a key point of differentiation between the Romans and the Jews ..... not because the dietary laws relating to pigs are more important (to the Jews) than the other laws, but because the Romans ate a lot of pork products
So you do get it at least somewhat. But the author does not. The author makes the refusal to eat pork as something very important to the Jews to maintain purity, when actually pork does not hold any such central position. ALL the dietary laws are to maintain purity, pork is not more important than the rest.
The author believes Jews did not eat pork because it was physically unclean and they were required to maintain purity. This is false. Jews did not drink camel milk either - are camels physically unclean?
I can totally see how the Romans would elevate pork above other restrictions, but that's a story about the Romans not about the Jews, and it has nothing to do with the eating habits of a Pig. The Jews did not think "I don't eat pork therefore I am apart from you", pork was not the thing that separated them.
>>There is NO law requiring death from eating pork!
> I don't see anywhere in the article that even remotely suggested there is. And I certainly made no such claim.
You wrote: "even in the face of death, a Jew must refuse pork in order to remain true to his people"
So yes you did make such a claim, and no, it's not true. In the face of death a Jew MAY eat pork, and is actually REQUIRED to eat pork. Except in a public case like in the story.
> Eleazar was killed for refusing to eat pork .... I think pork has at least something to do with that.
If he was ordered to eat an apple from a tree less than 3 years old the story would play out identically. The pork is completely incidental, yet the author makes it central to his narrative.
> The eating of pork products was a key point of differentiation between the Romans and the Jews ..... not because the dietary laws relating to pigs are more important (to the Jews) than the other laws, but because the Romans ate a lot of pork products
So you do get it at least somewhat. But the author does not. The author makes the refusal to eat pork as something very important to the Jews to maintain purity, when actually pork does not hold any such central position. ALL the dietary laws are to maintain purity, pork is not more important than the rest.
The author believes Jews did not eat pork because it was physically unclean and they were required to maintain purity. This is false. Jews did not drink camel milk either - are camels physically unclean?
I can totally see how the Romans would elevate pork above other restrictions, but that's a story about the Romans not about the Jews, and it has nothing to do with the eating habits of a Pig. The Jews did not think "I don't eat pork therefore I am apart from you", pork was not the thing that separated them.