I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo • Hacker News Board

Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo

#21

Post by baldfat » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 5:03 PM UTC

soylentcola wrote: post #20

baldfat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 differen…

If I could teach everyone one thing it would be to understand as best you can what other people believed in different times.

So called "Biblical Scholars" mess this up all the time and put modern thought into ANE practice.

Case "The rain falls on the just and the unjust." They say this all the time when something bad happens. If you lived in a place where your food is dependent on rain the rain is the good thing. So instead of man bad things happen to everyone it really is good thing happen to everyone. Meaning the whole idea of Karma is broken and you do bad things and still good thing will happen to you from time to time. Doesn't mean your great because you got rich or lucky.

Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo

#22

Post by ars » Thu, Oct 15, 2015, 5:53 PM UTC

timv wrote: post #18

ars wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo

#23

Post by baldfat » Fri, Oct 16, 2015, 2:08 AM UTC

minority-one wrote: post #19

baldfat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

>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)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

I love wikipedia for the links to related subjects. I have read a ton of the various codes and have written papers on the similarities and differences. To keep it short the main idea for the eating is "unclean" and in Mosaic Law it had a good rational on keeping people separated that were "unclean and for health reasons probably saved a ton of people.

In our society we know what is bad for us and most of us including me still do eat the bad things. They made it a law even though the general population enjoyed pork, like I do.

> Can you talk more about "most are terrified at learning too much"? Do people think through studying rigorously they will inevitably shed beliefs?

To really hack to death "Platos Theory of Form" TL:DR The more you know something the more abstract you know it.

My theory: Most people struggle with abstract thought i.e. math beyond business math. When they struggle with the abstract thought what happens to their concept of their faith? Do they lose God like they believe others.

My wife and I share our belief very dear and close and it is the driving force of our lives. We never talk theology. Her idea is that since I have 2 years of ancient Hebrew and 2 years of Greek and even taught 2nd year Greek in college that I have answers. I would read anywhere between 5,000 to 20,000 pages per class in seminary, that would be around 400-500 pages a week minimum. I usually go, "It seems ...." or "It depends ..." and than she walks out frustrated.

I embrace the unknown and the mystery. I hold to the idea that if God was to be provable He would have made Himself a concrete object. This came from reading a lot of Soren Kierkegaard and in fact I named my son Soren after him. Kierkegaard came up with the "Leap of Faith" well after studying that the popular belief in that is wrong. It is a leap of despair and dread into the unknown and land upon faith. So it wasn't a Leap of Faith but a Leap to Faith.

Sorry I am use to writing 20 page papers on subject like this all the time.