Why did certain religions ban pork?

[JabbaPapa]

I have not said that the Jews were idiots - so that is either a strawman you've created or a non sequitur.

No -- but I can understand that you could have interpreted it as such, so fair enough.

Should probably have avoided the word "idiots", in hindsight.

My point was attempting to be that there is no reason to assume that because peoples A B and C don't understand sanitation, that people D cannot understand it either.

No it doesn't that is interpreting the Jewish scripture in the light of modern knowledge. The same as those that claim the seven day creation is really a primitive statement of the big-bang and the formation of the universe.

Sorry, but this comparison is haphazard and fairly ridiculous.

I don't know if you've ever had tapeworm, but I can assure you that modern medicine is not needed to realise that one has it.

It's just self-evident when one does.

It is ludicrous to compare this sort of obvious medical fact with a blatantly metaphorical cosmogonic myth.

And indeed the Jewish scripture contradicts empirical evidence that the Jews themselves could have obtained.

Empiricism was unavailable to the iron age Hebrews.

No - if you want to understand the knowledge level of a particular society and/or culture looking at their neighbours and so on can provide a measure.

And there is no measure that shows the Jews had indeed come to what is elsewhere in the world a very modern understanding and concept of parasites and diseases.

OK -- you've never had tapeworm.

Not based on anything I've actually posted in this thread you can't. Again I fear that you are engaging in the creation of strawmen.

Nope -- and the nature of your reply simply adds more evidence to support my analysis that you're viewing the iron age Hebrews as having been irrationally motivated in the construction of these teachings.

 

[JabbaPapa]

Ehhh, yes. You may not understand logic and logical reasoning to understand the concept of circular reasoning but you post was an example of it.

Ironically, you are deploying circular reasoning in your attempt to accuse me of the same.

Probably, you have misunderstood my point that the Hebrew food taboos are evidence of sanitary concerns as a suggestion that they provide "proof" of such.

Nope, not proof -- just evidence.

The interpretation of that evidence by yourself is not my concern.

 

[ddt]

Anecdotes from mid-19th century France are not "evidence" of the relative behaviour of meat in ~1000 BC North Africa or Middle East.

There's a difference between "anecdote" and a study.

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.

So why did you bring up the preservation time in the first place? You now argue it's irrelevant.

These facts have exactly nothing to do with tapeworm.

Addressed above.

How many people read the literature of your Egyptians and Babylonians today, compared to the literature of these "illiterate goatherds" ???

How many people read the Red Book of Mao compared to those who read Homer? There's more than literary quality to the popularity of a work. And the literary quality is quite variable. I note you don't mention, say, Numbers or Leviticus.

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.

"Illiterate goatherds" do NOT produce ANYTHING like the Book of Job, the Song of Solomon, nor the Book of Judith.

Book of Job:

Modern scholarship dates the work between the 6th and 4th century BC.

Song of Solomon:

Song of Songs for the first time gives literary representation to the everyday post-exilic vernacular. It contains loan words from languages with which Hebrew had contact in post-exilic times, such as Persian, Greek, and Aramaic, and contains numerous items of vocabulary that are otherwise unknown in Biblical Hebrew but are known from Rabbinic Hebrew,

Book of Judith:

The Book of Judith is a deuterocanonical book, included in the Septuagint and the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christian Old Testament of the Bible, but excluded by Jews and Protestants.

So it's not even unequivocally in the Bible. As to its origin:

It is not clear whether the Book of Judith was originally written in Hebrew or in Greek. The oldest extant version is the Septuagint and might either be a translation from Hebrew or composed in Greek. Details of vocabulary and phrasing point to a Greek text written in a language modeled on the Greek developed through translating the other books in the Septuagint.

Thanks for proving my point. The parts you pick out of the Bible are post-exilic.

(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)

I never said there were no reasons for the taboo. I just argued that health is not the right avenue to look for them. The in/outgroup distinction is a very rational reason to. It prohibits your people from fraternizing too much with their neighbors the Elamites or Midanites or whoever they were at the time.

 

[Darat]

No -- but I can understand that you could have interpreted it as such, so fair enough.

Should probably have avoided the word "idiots", in hindsight.

My point was attempting to be that there is no reason to assume that because peoples A B and C don't understand sanitation, that people D cannot understand it either.

And I didn't say it proved anything but it does give an idea of what level of knowledge is generally available to a group.

Sorry, but this comparison is haphazard and fairly ridiculous.

Why?[/quote]

I don't know if you've ever had tapeworm, but I can assure you that modern medicine is not needed to realise that one has it.

I think you may well be mistaken: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Tapeworm-infections/Pages/Symptoms.aspx

...snip...
People are often unaware they have a tapeworm infection. They may have no symptoms or very few symptoms, which are usually general.


...snip...

It's just self-evident when one does.

It is ludicrous to compare this sort of obvious medical fact with a blatantly metaphorical cosmogonic myth.

But as can be seen above your "obvious medical fact" is in fact not a fact. Perhaps you will now reconsider your conclusion since one of the premises you based it on was factually wrong?

Empiricism was unavailable to the iron age Hebrews.

Why? Did they not have eyes?

OK -- you've never had tapeworm.

Not to my knowledge but I could well have done as I spent part of my childhood in a couple of African countries so very likely I was exposed. (However my parents would regularly dosed us with worming tablets!)

I do well remember a belief of my grandmother and her peers that eating too much sugar could give you a tapeworm, and how if you starved yourself you could get a tapeworm to travel up your throat by tempting it with food held in the mouth....

Nope -- and the nature of your reply simply adds more evidence to support my analysis that you're viewing the iron age Hebrews as having been irrationally motivated in the construction of these teachings.

The nature of my reply has to been to deal with what you have actually posted, perhaps you could do me the same courtesy and address what I've actually posted rather than making up strawmen? That way we can have a discussion.

 

[Darat]

...snip...


I never said there were no reasons for the taboo. I just argued that health is not the right avenue to look for them. The in/outgroup distinction is a very rational reason to. It prohibits your people from fraternizing too much with their neighbors the Elamites or Midanites or whoever they were at the time.

Also we have to remember that what may now be considered irrational reasoning(because our knowledge has expanded) may have been given the knowledge of the times quite rational reasoning.

ETA: I would lend some credence to a "health rationale" behind the pork prohibition if there was something explicit in the text (e.g. "you will sicken") or that other prohibitions used the same knowledge of disease/parasite cause and effect.

 

[JabbaPapa]

There's a difference between "anecdote" and a study.

In mid-19th century French scholarship ?

You're simply unfamiliar with that particular genre.

So why did you bring up the preservation time in the first place? You now argue it's irrelevant.

"irrelevant" ??

Where ?

I simply pointed out that your extremist interpretation of my suggestions was caricatural.

Addressed above.

??? Where ? What ? When ?

How many people read the Red Book of Mao compared to those who read Homer? There's more than literary quality to the popularity of a work. And the literary quality is quite variable. I note you don't mention, say, Numbers or Leviticus.

Red Book : 1,055,498,000 copies

Iliad : apparently inestimable ; several dozens or hundreds of millions of copies in each important language I suppose

Odyssey : ditto

Of course, all pale in comparison with the 6 billion copies produced of the Bible, as written by the infamous "illiterate goatherds".

I never said there were no reasons for the taboo. I just argued that health is not the right avenue to look for them. The in/outgroup distinction is a very rational reason to. It prohibits your people from fraternizing too much with their neighbors the Elamites or Midanites or whoever they were at the time.

Proof ?

 

[JabbaPapa]

Why?

I think you may well be mistaken: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Tapeworm-infections/Pages/Symptoms.aspx

... Good grief -- their young propagate through one's faeces.

You simply have no clue what you're talking about...

But as can be seen above your "obvious medical fact" is in fact not a fact. Perhaps you will now reconsider your conclusion since one of the premises you based it on was factually wrong?

I am unlikely to "reconsider" any part of experiential reality.

Why? Did they not have eyes?

Empiricism, being an invention of Descartes and Newton, is unlikely to have been available to "illiterate iron age goatherds".

AKA you REALLY can't have your cake and eat it.

The nature of my reply has to been to deal with what you have actually posted, perhaps you could do me the same courtesy and address what I've actually posted rather than making up strawmen? That way we can have a discussion.

Fair enough, but this would assume that you might refrain in future from posting such caricatural suggestions as previously ?

 

[Resume]

Red Book : 1,055,498,000 copies

Iliad : apparently inestimable ; several dozens or hundreds of millions of copies in each important language I suppose

Odyssey : ditto

Of course, all pale in comparison with the 6 billion copies produced of the Bible, as written by the infamous "illiterate goatherds".

I'd be willing to bet that a far larger percentage have read their copies of Iliad or Odyssey than have those with a bible in their possession.

 

[ddt]

"irrelevant" ??

Where ?

I simply pointed out that your extremist interpretation of my suggestions was caricatural.

You argued that the Torah prescribed to eat meat immediately after slaughter. That makes discussion about how long it stays good irrelevant anyway.

??? Where ? What ? When ?

My post #152.

Red Book : 1,055,498,000 copies

Iliad : apparently inestimable ; several dozens or hundreds of millions of copies in each important language I suppose

Odyssey : ditto

How can you estimate numbers after you've claimed their inestimable.

Of course, all pale in comparison with the 6 billion copies produced of the Bible, as written by the infamous "illiterate goatherds".

Which was shoved down the throats of those people in very much the same way as Mao's Red Book. And all those parts you value so much were not written by illiterate goatherds, but by their leaders after they had a cultural sojourn at Babylon.

Proof ?

See xterra's post. "Prohibit" is a bit stark, but it severely hinders fraternization. Eating together is a very important part of socialization, always has been. Having a ridiculously difficult set of rules to prepare food will effectively keep you from eating out at the Elamites. And conversely, those Elamites will think you're mesjugge.

 

[JabbaPapa]

I'd be willing to bet that a far larger percentage have read their copies of Iliad or Odyssey than have those with a bible in their possession.

You'd probably lose that bet.

 

[Darat]

... Good grief -- their young propagate through one's faeces.

Yes and... ?

You simply have no clue what you're talking about...

Did you not read the link I provided - for some reason I shall take the knowledge of actual medical folk over your assertions.

.

I am unlikely to "reconsider" any part of experiential reality.



Empiricism, being an invention of Descartes and Newton, is unlikely to have been available to "illiterate iron age goatherds".

AKA you REALLY can't have your cake and eat it.

Oh dear - already down to silly semantic quibbles trying to score points rather than discussing things. I should remind you that I have never claimed that the Jews couldn't and didn't observe the world around them.

Fair enough, but this would assume that you might refrain in future from posting such caricatural suggestions as previously ?

I do have to ask what does it matter if my suggestions are "caricatural"
in regards to you not lying about what I posted? But the choice is of course yours - continue to make up strawmen or discuss something in a productive manner - it's up to you.

 

[Resume]

You'd probably lose that bet.

We might have to define what's meant by "read' first.

 

[pakeha]

Could you post up the source material for that claim, please?

I'd like to see where you got this idea, JabbaPapa
"...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"

 

[JabbaPapa]

Yes and... ?

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility. Also, please post in English only.

Tapeworm infestation is blatantly obvious.

 

[JabbaPapa]

I'd like to see where you got this idea, JabbaPapa
"...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"

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

 

[pakeha]

No worries, JP, memory's a bitch.
Anyway, I'd appreciate knowing what sources you used for that claim.
I ask, rather than Google, because I'd like to be sure we're on the same page.
Cheers!

 

[GlennB]

Empiricism, being an invention of Descartes and Newton, is unlikely to have been available to "illiterate iron age goatherds".

Empiricism, as a tool, existed from the moment people started noticing cause and effect. You know, like how sex leads to pregnancy, objects falling on your head over a long distance hurt more than those falling over a short distance, and the like. The scientists you mention didn't "invent" it, they merely formulated it (assuming your reference is correct).

 

[JabbaPapa]

Empiricism, as a tool, existed from the moment people started noticing cause and effect. You know, like how sex leads to pregnancy, objects falling on your head over a long distance hurt more than those falling over a short distance, and the like. The scientists you mention didn't "invent" it, they merely formulated it (assuming your reference is correct).

... but the "illiterate iron age goatherds" had no ability to observe a correlation between pigs, tapeworm, and pork ?

Double standards.

 

[xterra]

[...] As for the reason, no rabbi or teacher in our religious schools ever suggested one; the law of kashrut just was. If you had mentioned the trichinosis hypothesis, they would have looked at you as if you had grown two heads, both of which were speaking nonsense.

IOW you don't know either.

I should have answered this earlier.

Of course I don't know, and I don't believe anyone else does either, despite attempts to construct explanations.

 

[ddt]

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

And those 2,000 years difference is quite crucial. There is evidence of writing from Egypt as well as Babylon from 3,000 BC. When you now claim the Bible dates back to 1,000 BC, that's quite the new kid on the block. By that time, Egypt as well as Babylon had turned into empires, had built the Great Pyramid, Tutankhamun's grave, the Ishtar Gate etc. etc.

And actually, that 1,000 BC claim is overblown too. Some scholars argue that bits and pieces of the Bible - actually only of the Torah, none of which you forwarded as of such literary quality - date back to ca. 800 BC. Still, the final editing and the mash-up of the various sources is ascribed by all scholars as post-exilic.

And the oldest archaeological evidence are the Ketef Hinnom scrolls. Tenuous evidence, actually, as the texts they contain only resemble actual Bible quotes, but are not identical.