Anecdotes from mid-19th century France are not "evidence" of the relative behaviour of meat in ~1000 BC North Africa or Middle East.
As well as your anecdotal claims. I presume you're from the USA as most posters here - correct me if I'm wrong. That's a temperate climate as well.
No such luck, I'm afraid -- I live in
France, and I have professional experience concerning the preservation of meat in the French climate and its meat industry.
But they're the best data that has been presented thus far on how well meat preserves. And you totally ignored them in your previous post. If you have data that better applies to the climate of the Near East, present them. They're more pertinent than your anecdotal claims
I don't, but then again nor do you, apparently -- and they'd of course be far superiour to your own anecdotal claims concerning 19th century France, as well as to my own anecdotal experiences.
I live on the extreme South Coast of France, and have hiked the entirety of the South of France in the midst of Summer -- the French climate is simply not comparable to that of Egypt/Sinai/Palestine ; as any weather chart might inform you.
as the study dates from before modern refrigeration techniques. And I see no reason why in a Mediterranean climate, the preservation times of pork (4 days) and sheep (2 days) attested in France would suddenly be reversed.
You seem to believe that I claimed pork as being the most perishable meat on planet Earth.
I didn't.
Quite apart from which, as regards your reference to mutton and lamb -- the Torah instructs that it must be eaten
immediately after sacrifice, and any remains from the meal must be immediately incinerated.
You claim it, you prove it. That's an obvious rule. The fact that you don't prove, or even attempt to argue your case, suggests to me that you don't have any argument at all.
Non sequitur.
Just write down "I disagree with you because XYZ" next time, this "burden of proof" gambit being both useless and pointless.
and which part of "
I was just being sarcastic" did you fail to understand ?
So did the Egyptians and the Babylonians. We have writings from them from around 3000 BC. Many biblical scholars put all of the Bible post-exilic, i.e. from around 500 BC onwards. In comparison to their neighbours, the Hebrews were illiterate goat herders, and there is not a single sign of an advanced, structured society. It's disingenuous of you to snip out just that part so you don't have to address that point.
oh dear oh dear ...
Recent Biblical philology and archaeological discoveries of fragments of older editions of the Torah have in fact dated the writing of its earlier volumes to around circa 3000 BC IIRC
The 500 BC theory is BTW completely preposterous, and based on zero evidence.
How many people read the literature of your Egyptians and Babylonians today, compared to the literature of these "illiterate goatherds" ???
Your claims are not merely evidence-free --- they actually fly in the face of the most blatant evidence imaginable.
"Illiterate goatherds" do NOT produce ANYTHING like the
Book of Job, the
Song of Solomon, nor the
Book of Judith.
They make goat cheese instead.
No it's not. It's based on the facts that
(a) the best evidence thus far shows that pork preserves as long as beef and longer than sheep;
(b) the Jews were the only people in their part of the world to prohibit pork.
These facts have exactly nothing to do with tapeworm.
"
the Jews were the only people in their part of the world to prohibit pork"
The Americans are the only people in the world to have ever attacked a foreign nation with nuclear weapons.
Such statements prove nothing.
(you're using magical reasoning -- the fact that the Jews were the only people to do so does not prohibit any potential causes for this taboo)
