Great article!
I didn't know that Roman cuisine featured "liquamen—a fermented fish sauce central to Roman cuisine".
I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
11–20 of 23 posts
Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
#12Great article! I didn't know that Roman cuisine featured "liquamen—a fermented fish sauce central to Roman cuisine".
That'd odd, I've always heard it was called "garum".
Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
#13Great article! I didn't know that Roman cuisine featured "liquamen—a fermented fish sauce central to Roman cuisine".
That'd odd, I've always heard it was called "garum".
My understanding is that was regional thing. Some called it liquamen and others called it garum. They might have started out as different variations of fish sauce but as cultural influences spread across the empire they became the same thing.
Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
#14Great article! I didn't know that Roman cuisine featured "liquamen—a fermented fish sauce central to Roman cuisine".
That'd odd, I've always heard it was called "garum".
As did I. According to Wikipedia[0], "Liquamen was a similar preparation, and at times the two were synonymous."
Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be said that there is no such thing as consensus among Jews or rabbinical scholars regarding the interpretation and understanding of Talmudic Law. To say "Jews do or don't do X, Y, or Z" is an inherently flawed statement. What is true is that only a small fraction of American Jews keep strictly kosher (e.g. most do not have two dishwashers). Some dietary restrictions are often given more consideration than…
It's also (to refer to the grand-parent) a stretch to make concrete claims about why any large group of people do any particular thing. I know Jewish people who avoid eating pork (etc) because it's their cultural identity and they don't want to disrespect that part of their heritage even though they have no particular belief in God or reverence for the Torah.
What's ironic about that cultural Judaism is that that practice, even for atheists, still ultimately comes from God (whether or not you believe in it/him/etc).
Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
#16It's a great story, but not entirely true. Jews do not avoid pig for the reasons listed but simply because God said not to eat pig. That's it. No other reason. And note there are a TON of animals Jews don't eat, not just pig. Yet people seem to focus on the pig more than any other. This says more about them than about the Jews.
For someone who does not accept the idea of divine authorship or inspiration of the Biblical text (like me), the question is: why is it written into the Bible as a divine commandment? Where did this religious law come from? A lot of the laws in that text have some sort of systematic/philosophical justification for them, however alien that justification might be to modern ears, so what is it for the Kashrut laws?
Seminary Student Here. The really cool thing is that the Ancient Hebrew writing (One of the earliest in the world) started around the time of Moses. I have read many ANE (Ancient Near East) laws and papers and almost all of them had dietary rules and rules on just about everything. A person's national identity was directly tied to one's national religion. Reading other papers kind of shows that this isn't some wacky crazy idea but a very common thing in the area.
I might say the academic integrity of most non-religious disciplines is horrible and lazy. Academics will take text (for example The Epic of Gilgamesh) treat all the copies as one story and try to prove stupid things compared to the Old Testament that are just plain silly or they don't know how to read dates. Heck the way academics had treated the New Testament was also just play lazy and stupid, but now things are improving.
PS As a seminary student I had several non-believing professors come and teach in my classes because they found looking for the answer to the question you asked worthy of a life long pursuit. Theology is really a great discipline and very enjoyable academic pursuit. It deepened my faith but I must say most are terrified at learning too much will change their faith, which they shouldn't in m opinion.
Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
#17From the history of pig farming in the Near East, it seems they enjoyed the current status of pidgeons, rats and insects in the psychological food hierarchy.
Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the article makes no claims about why Jews avoid pigs, other than a few minor observations such as: - Israelites came to consider pork avoidance a central element of their identity. - Scriptural dietary rules grew more significant with time. - God expresses his fury at a few people who have eaten “swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things.” - even in the face of death, a Jew must refuse pork in order to re…
Have you ever heard the saying a little knowledge is a dangerous thing? > even in the face of death, a Jew must refuse pork in order to remain true to his people Both you and the author have completely misunderstood this episode. There is NO law requiring death from eating pork! There is however a law that if an oppressor tries to make someone violate a law in public you must must accept death rather than comply with…
> 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.
Eleazer is a hero in Maccabees because he chooses death rather than violate the Mosaic law.
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 and the refusal of obedient Jews to partake was an obvious sign of their refusal to fall in line with Roman culture. It was not the only such point of contention, but in an article about eating pigs, it stands to reason that the pork issue is going to get a mention.
> Pork simply has nothing whatsoever to do with it!
Eleazar was killed for refusing to eat pork (or more accurately for refusing to pretend to eat pork). I think pork has at least something to do with that.
Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
For someone who does not accept the idea of divine authorship or inspiration of the Biblical text (like me), the question is: why is it written into the Bible as a divine commandment? Where did this religious law come from? A lot of the laws in that text have some sort of systematic/philosophical justification for them, however alien that justification might be to modern ears, so what is it for the Kashrut laws?
Seminary Student Here. The really cool thing is that the Ancient Hebrew writing (One of the earliest in the world) started around the time of Moses. I have read many ANE (Ancient Near East) laws and papers and almost all of them had dietary rules and rules on just about everything. A person's national identity was directly tied to one's national religion. Reading other papers kind of shows that this isn't some wacky…
Can you touch on the Hammurapi (however you spell it) and its lack of animal food prohibition (or as far as I can remember, pork at least was not prohibited)?
> It deepened my faith but I must say most are terrified at learning too much will change their faith, which they shouldn't in m opinion.
Can you talk more about "most are terrified at learning too much"? Do people think through studying rigorously they will inevitably shed beliefs?
Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
For someone who does not accept the idea of divine authorship or inspiration of the Biblical text (like me), the question is: why is it written into the Bible as a divine commandment? Where did this religious law come from? A lot of the laws in that text have some sort of systematic/philosophical justification for them, however alien that justification might be to modern ears, so what is it for the Kashrut laws?
Seminary Student Here. The really cool thing is that the Ancient Hebrew writing (One of the earliest in the world) started around the time of Moses. I have read many ANE (Ancient Near East) laws and papers and almost all of them had dietary rules and rules on just about everything. A person's national identity was directly tied to one's national religion. Reading other papers kind of shows that this isn't some wacky…
> A person's national identity was directly tied to one's national religion.
A point I often bring up when people discuss things done "in the name of religion" that seem either counter to the themes of said religion or just odd under that justification.
And I say this as a non-religious person under the common usage of "religious".
For a lot of people, and possibly to a greater extent in different places and different times than the modern, western world, there is little distinction between "creed" and national/cultural identity. Religion wasn't just where you went to church or temple on Saturday or Sunday but rather it's another term for the distinct identity of a group. Ideas of divine laws and rules of behavior mix with the shared cultural, ethnic, and historically geographical identity of your tribe or nation.
Just as now we might talk about the things you must believe and practice to be considered a true Christian or a true Muslim, there were things you had to accept and behaviors you had to practice in order to be a "real" Roman or a "real" Hebrew. I think this was more of an identifying factor than our modern concept of nations and religions.
So when you wonder how someone could do a thing because of their religion, and so many people do different things based on the same religion, I often think about it in terms of how people act differently even though their motivation may fall under the scope of "because I'm an American" (or any other nationality). "Nationalism" almost serves the same purpose as "religion" when transposing between secular and sacred frameworks.
I'm admittedly not an expert on this but it's something that interests me in terms of history and anthropology.