Why did certain religions ban pork?

[pakeha]

aaaah sorry I'm guilty of faulty memory/exaggeration

It's 3000 years old, not 3000 BC

Yes, I *did* mean the IIRC bit

I didn't RC, oops

This is the only reply you gave my request, at least as far as I can see.
Feel free to post up your sources for that 3,000 year old claim.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Gosh.
Of course I've read the thread.
And I'm still waiting for the links to the sources for your claims.

If you had read the thread, as you claim, you would see that I abandoned the claim -- anyway, keep on beating that dead horse, it might tenderize the meat for your next horseburger meal.

 

[JabbaPapa]

This is not a discussion of doctrine nor of theology. It is a discussion of why religions ban pork. To note that Islam views much of the Torah as scripture pretty clearly explains why they share this prohibition with the Jews. It is a historical reality that does not depend on the theological difference between the religions.

They have shared scripture. That is all.

That they have widely differing views of those texts is the very reason they have separate religions, but it does not minimize the fact that the Abrahamic religions all view a certain set of texts as holy. Hence the name: Abrahamic.

The Jewish prohibition against pork is found in the Torah, the Christian lack of prohibition of the same is found in the Gospels, and the Islamic prohibition against pork is found in the Koran.

Your view that "the Abrahamic religions all view a certain set of texts as holy" is not only misleading, given that these three religions do not share a singular corpus of holy texts, but it seems to be falsely suggesting not only that the three religions are text-based (in fact, only Islam is text-centric in the manner that you suggest), but also that the great disparity in which texts the three religions consider as holy might be of only minor consequence.

Finally, your notion that the Christ-centric religion of the Christians and the Mohammed-centric religion of the Muslims might be "Abrahamic" on the basis of this theory about texts is simply bizarre.

---

Personally, I'd view the prohibition against pork as being of an ethnic, semitic origin, rather than being of a religious origin per se -- though there's no doubt that it has over the course of centuries evolved into being a teaching that is today to be considered as being religious in nature.

 

[pakeha]

If you had read the thread, as you claim, you would see that I abandoned the claim -- anyway, keep on beating that dead horse, it might tenderize the meat for your next horseburger meal.

What I saw was that you shifted the goalposts, in the post I quoted that lies directly above the one I've quoted here.

What I saw was that you now claim the Torah is three thousand years old.
And my request still stands, what are your sources for that idea?

 

[JabbaPapa]

This is the only reply you gave my request, at least as far as I can see.
Feel free to post up your sources for that 3,000 year old claim.

3000 years old is a conservative theory.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-02-05/news/1996036054_1_samaritans-mount-gerizim-torah


Here is proof that the Hebrews of 3000 years ago were literate ; http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/2011/05/3000-year-old-hebrew-inscription.html

Whilst not providing PROOF that the Torah was written at least 3000 years ago, the inscription fairly powerfully demonstrates the existence of the Jewish religion ~1000 BC : http://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-possibly-written-centuries-earlier-text-suggests.html ; the poem is directly reminiscent of the Biblical texts, and demonstrates that a textual religious tradition of Hebrew language and religion certainly existed at that time.


Here is a presentation of some basic facts about the History of Religion (which BTW dates Judaism to being about 4000 years old) : http://www.wisegeek.org/which-are-the-oldest-religions-in-the-world.htm


There is a certain amount of confusion as to the dating of the Torah, because the texts as we have them now, for the Pentateuch in particular, seem to have been edited into their present form in about the 6th century BC -- the notion that they were therefore written in that period is derived from some contents that were added at that time.

One has to remember though, that these were also legal texts, so that prior to their having gained a status of being sacred, it could have been considered normal to continue revising them as according to the evolution of the Law.

Of the older books in the Histories though, the oldest is typically dated to about the 8th century BC -- and the original texts of the Torah itself can only have been earlier than this, a complementary volume not being possible except on the basis of an original textual corpus.

The latest texts included in the Christian Old Testament were not written until 1st century BC OTOH, the Septuagint translation often used by Christians having been produced in the 2nd Century BC, whilst the Jewish canon of texts was established in late Antiquity, collecting texts whose final edited forms were produced between 8th and 3rd/2nd centuries.

There is however no real argument against the proposition that the Pentateuch in particular underwent a process of evolution prior to reaching its final form in about 6th century BC, and it is a conservative estimate, based on archaeological, linguistic, and internal evidence that this process will have taken at least 200 years before the oldest extant text in the Bible was written.

The Myth of Eden is probably older than 3000 years old, and probably bronze age, whereas the Torah likely began to be written per se at least 3000 years ago. I am unaware of any serious objections to this theory ; the only serious objection that did once exist was that Hebrew script had not been demonstrated in that period. Not only did it exist, but the extant sample that we have of it contains what seems to be a direct reference to the contents of the Hebrew Law, if not to the current texts of the Torah. The discovery is supportive of the existence of the Torah in about 1000 BC, and supportive of the Jewish Tradition that this is the age of the work -- notwithstanding its editing over a 400-500 year period of whichever original contents.

 

[JabbaPapa]

What I saw was that you shifted the goalposts

I didn't "shift the goalposts", I had made a mistake in my earlier post.

When that mistake was challenged, I recognised that mistake.

Why is this so hard for you to understand ?

 

[pakeha]

OK, you've changed your claim.
That's no problem, admitting you're wrong is nothing special.

What I'm asking you is why you think the Torah is 3,000 years old.
What source reading brought you to that conclusion?

 

[Jon.]

3000 years old is a conservative theory.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-02-05/news/1996036054_1_samaritans-mount-gerizim-torah

Sorry, but that's not a very good source. It gives no evidence to support its claim that the Samaritans have been doing what they do for 3000 years. For all we know, it could be just accepting what the Samaritans say; as we all know, many religions claim to be much older than they are.

Here is proof that the Hebrews of 3000 years ago were literate ; http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/2011/05/3000-year-old-hebrew-inscription.html

Proto-Canaanite script only proves that there were literate people in the region using a script that eventually evolved into Hebrew. There is no indication that the ostracon is religious in nature, and it certainly doesn't say anything about what the people in that area considered to be sacred writings.

Whilst not providing PROOF that the Torah was written at least 3000 years ago, the inscription fairly powerfully demonstrates the existence of the Jewish religion ~1000 BC : http://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-possibly-written-centuries-earlier-text-suggests.html ; the poem is directly reminiscent of the Biblical texts, and demonstrates that a textual religious tradition of Hebrew language and religion certainly existed at that time.

A quote from that link:

The content, which has some missing letters, is similar to some Biblical scriptures, such as Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, and Exodus 23:3, but does not appear to be copied from any Biblical text.

So it has nothing to say about the age of what we consider to be the Bible or the Torah.

Here is a presentation of some basic facts about the History of Religion (which BTW dates Judaism to being about 4000 years old) : http://www.wisegeek.org/which-are-the-oldest-religions-in-the-world.htm

Simple assertion, no supporting evidence, nothing about the age of the Torah.

[snippage]

The Myth of Eden is probably older than 3000 years old, and probably bronze age, whereas the Torah likely began to be written per se at least 3000 years ago. I am unaware of any serious objections to this theory ; the only serious objection that did once exist was that Hebrew script had not been demonstrated in that period. Not only did it exist, but the extant sample that we have of it contains what seems to be a direct reference to the contents of the Hebrew Law, if not to the current texts of the Torah. The discovery is supportive of the existence of the Torah in about 1000 BC, and supportive of the Jewish Tradition that this is the age of the work -- notwithstanding its editing over a 400-500 year period of whichever original contents.

The myth of Eden is almost certainly older that 3000 years old, and definitely older than the book of Genesis and probably Judaism (at least, Judaism in any form we would recognize today).

I would be prepared to accept that there was probably a religion in the Middle East 3000 years ago that evolved into what we now call Judaism. I would also be prepared to accept that that religion had sacred texts, and that elements of those texts were adapted into what became the Torah. I haven't yet seen evidence that convinces me that the Torah itself is 3000 years old.

 

[Jon.]

sorry, double post

 

[Dinwar]

I am completely uninterested in your personal opinion concerning my posting style.

Also any actual data in my posts, apparently, considering you keep ignoring it.

would be prepared to accept that there was probably a religion in the Middle East 3000 years ago that evolved into what we now call Judaism.

We had a thread about this a while back. It degenerated into one guy trying to say that Christians worshiped a cow-god, but it did include some good information about the history of Judaism. YHWH was the name of a cow-shaped god of an older religion, and it's not unreasonable to conclude that Judaism (and therefore Christianity and Islam) stemmed from worship of that god.

 

[pakeha]

3000 years old is a conservative theory.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-02-05/news/1996036054_1_samaritans-mount-gerizim-torah


Here is proof that the Hebrews of 3000 years ago were literate ; http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/2011/05/3000-year-old-hebrew-inscription.html

Whilst not providing PROOF that the Torah was written at least 3000 years ago, the inscription fairly powerfully demonstrates the existence of the Jewish religion ~1000 BC : http://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-possibly-written-centuries-earlier-text-suggests.html ; the poem is directly reminiscent of the Biblical texts, and demonstrates that a textual religious tradition of Hebrew language and religion certainly existed at that time.


Here is a presentation of some basic facts about the History of Religion (which BTW dates Judaism to being about 4000 years old) : http://www.wisegeek.org/which-are-the-oldest-religions-in-the-world.htm


There is a certain amount of confusion as to the dating of the Torah, because the texts as we have them now, for the Pentateuch in particular, seem to have been edited into their present form in about the 6th century BC -- the notion that they were therefore written in that period is derived from some contents that were added at that time.

One has to remember though, that these were also legal texts, so that prior to their having gained a status of being sacred, it could have been considered normal to continue revising them as according to the evolution of the Law.

Of the older books in the Histories though, the oldest is typically dated to about the 8th century BC -- and the original texts of the Torah itself can only have been earlier than this, a complementary volume not being possible except on the basis of an original textual corpus.

The latest texts included in the Christian Old Testament were not written until 1st century BC OTOH, the Septuagint translation often used by Christians having been produced in the 2nd Century BC, whilst the Jewish canon of texts was established in late Antiquity, collecting texts whose final edited forms were produced between 8th and 3rd/2nd centuries.

There is however no real argument against the proposition that the Pentateuch in particular underwent a process of evolution prior to reaching its final form in about 6th century BC, and it is a conservative estimate, based on archaeological, linguistic, and internal evidence that this process will have taken at least 200 years before the oldest extant text in the Bible was written.

The Myth of Eden is probably older than 3000 years old, and probably bronze age, whereas the Torah likely began to be written per se at least 3000 years ago. I am unaware of any serious objections to this theory ; the only serious objection that did once exist was that Hebrew script had not been demonstrated in that period. Not only did it exist, but the extant sample that we have of it contains what seems to be a direct reference to the contents of the Hebrew Law, if not to the current texts of the Torah. The discovery is supportive of the existence of the Torah in about 1000 BC, and supportive of the Jewish Tradition that this is the age of the work -- notwithstanding its editing over a 400-500 year period of whichever original contents.

Thanks, JP!

 

[pakeha]

Also any actual data in my posts, apparently, considering you keep ignoring it.

We had a thread about this a while back. It degenerated into one guy trying to say that Christians worshiped a cow-god, but it did include some good information about the history of Judaism. YHWH was the name of a cow-shaped god of an older religion, and it's not unreasonable to conclude that Judaism (and therefore Christianity and Islam) stemmed from worship of that god.

That sounds like something I'd like to read.
Could you link to the thread, please?

 

[ddt]

Here is proof that the Hebrews of 3000 years ago were literate ; http://blog.dovidgottlieb.com/2011/05/3000-year-old-hebrew-inscription.html

Those comments about illiterate goat herders really got your goat, didn't they?
(oh and be careful when quoting me in the future).

Whilst not providing PROOF that the Torah was written at least 3000 years ago, the inscription fairly powerfully demonstrates the existence of the Jewish religion ~1000 BC : http://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-possibly-written-centuries-earlier-text-suggests.html ; the poem is directly reminiscent of the Biblical texts, and demonstrates that a textual religious tradition of Hebrew language and religion certainly existed at that time.

Such finds are only evidence that some texts that made it later into the Tanakh already existed at the time, but not that anything resembling the later Tanakh or even the singular books it consists of existed at the time. You may not adhere to the Documentary Hypothesis about the origin of the Torah, but it is without dispute that the text of the Torah with, e.g., its doublets and its various names for YHWH, consists of various literary and/or oral traditions which at a later date have been cobbled together into one text.

It's also arguable whether you could call that early worship Judaism. It certainly was not a monotheistic religion, but henotheistic. YHWH was just another guy in the Canaanite pantheon, where each god had its own region, and the text of the Torah bears clear evidence in places that they acknowledged the existence of other gods like Baal, but you shouldn't worship them because YHWH was the favourite local guy. Also, YHWH had a wife, Asherah, and she has been mostly but not totally edited out of the text.

There is a certain amount of confusion as to the dating of the Torah, because the texts as we have them now, for the Pentateuch in particular,

The Pentateuch is the Torah, viz., the five books of Moses.

seem to have been edited into their present form in about the 6th century BC -- the notion that they were therefore written in that period is derived from some contents that were added at that time.

The Torah is a mash-up of 2-4 different traditions. It starts right at the beginning: Genesis 1 tells of the creation of earth and man, and then Genesis 2 starts again with a different creation order. While some constituent texts may be older, the mash-up certainly is not.

The Myth of Eden is probably older than 3000 years old, and probably bronze age, whereas the Torah likely began to be written per se at least 3000 years ago.

The flood story of Noach Utnapishtim is also older, but that does not tell us exactly when the Jews nicked the story from the Babylonians.

I am unaware of any serious objections to this theory ; the only serious objection that did once exist was that Hebrew script had not been demonstrated in that period. Not only did it exist, but the extant sample that we have of it contains what seems to be a direct reference to the contents of the Hebrew Law, if not to the current texts of the Torah. The discovery is supportive of the existence of the Torah in about 1000 BC, and supportive of the Jewish Tradition that this is the age of the work -- notwithstanding its editing over a 400-500 year period of whichever original contents.

Nothing like the Torah existed in about 1000BC. Mashing up different traditions into a single work, in a way that the different traditions can only be teased out of it by careful text analysis, creates a new work. It's nothing like editing a new edition of a book where the original writer adds or removes a paragraph here and there.

It's also not evidence of previously existing written tradition; scholars don't agree whether the textual traditions that went into the Torah were written traditions or oral traditions. Nor are the timelines you give generally agreed upon.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Those comments about illiterate goat herders really got your goat, didn't they?

No, I find such comments to be idiotic.

Particularly the notion that authors might be illiterate.

 

[ddt]

No, I find such comments to be idiotic.

Particularly the notion that authors might be illiterate.

For some authors, that epithet certainly applies. Dan Brown comes to mind.

But no evidence that the Torah dates back to 1000BC, I see?

 

[JabbaPapa]

But no evidence that the Torah dates back to 1000BC, I see?

You seemingly expect evidence to behave like proof -- it doesn't.

If proof existed, this conversation would be pointless.

I've presented my reasoning -- you are not forced to accept it.

 

[Dinwar]

For some authors, that epithet certainly applies. Dan Brown comes to mind.

But no evidence that the Torah dates back to 1000BC, I see?

The thing is, the original version of the Bible stories were generally oral traditions only later written down. The original person to come up with, say, Leviticus could easily have been illiterate--after all, one need not know how to write to memorize spoken words. So it's actually not an insult to call the original creators illiterate; the real error is in calling them authors.

 

[RandyN]

Read about this as well in addition to hearing about it from various people who don't believe in the no-bacon hoopla here in Israel. The confusing bit is that cows require more feed to weight gain ratio that pigs require.

ie: Complete Costs of Raising Pigs

Pork FAQs

Then again, more parts of the cow can be used than pig. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is wrong. On our farm we used everything except the oink. The lessor foods were pickled pigs feet and soultz which is a gelatinous vinegary meat, fat jello like concoction....

Forget the pig is a dirty animal...nothing is dirtier than a chicken...they dont roll around in **** ....they actually eat it.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.

 

[GeneMachine]

This is wrong. On our farm we used everything except the oink. The lessor foods were pickled pigs feet and soultz which is a gelatinous vinegary meat, fat jello like concoction....

Forget the pig is a dirty animal...nothing is dirtier than a chicken...they dont roll around in **** ....they actually eat it.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.

Hehe, "soultz"? Where are you from? Here in Bavaria, we call it "Sulz" or, in high German "Sülze". Just preparing one, actually, from pig's feet and head. Tasty stuff! And I definitely resent the idea that thoe are "lesser foods".

And one of these days I will find a use for the oink, too

 

[Slowvehicle]

Hehe, "soultz"? Where are you from? Here in Bavaria, we call it "Sulz" or, in high German "Sülze". Just preparing one, actually, from pig's feet and head. Tasty stuff! And I definitely resent the idea that thoe are "lesser foods".

And one of these days I will find a use for the oink, too

Connection: is that like "Souse"?