3 ms·

> 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 cla

by timv 11y ago

> 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.

ars 11y ago
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.

by timv 11y ago

ars 11y ago

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.