ESV: "He said to him, 'Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.'"
NWT 2013: "He replied to him: 'Take for me a three-year-old heifer, a three-year-old female goat, a three-year-old ram, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.'"
Brenton LXX: "And he said to him, Take for me an heifer in her third year, and a she-goat in her third year, and a ram in his third year, and a dove and a pigeon."
Robert Alter translates Gen. 15:9: "a young pigeon"
Also see http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Gen&chapter=15&verse=9
Those translations decidely indicate that a pigeon is being brought/taken for sacrifice, not divided from its young.
Furthermore, a dove/pigeon is mentioned within sacrificial contexts many times (Lev. 1:3, 14; 5:7, 11; 9:3).
Therefore, E.A. Speiser (Genesis, page 113) writes concerning Gen. 15:9:
"Lastly, turtledoves and pigeons are cited repeatedly among the ritual provisions of Leviticus; see especially xiv 22; hence the above 'young pigeons' to render a Heb. noun that normally means 'young bird(s).'"
Nahum Sarna: "a young bird Hebrew gozal appears again only in Deuteronomy 32:11 as the young of an eagle. Here it probably is a pigeon since this bird is usually paired with the turtledove.15"
Footnote 15 above from Sarna: "Cf. Gen. R. 44:17, Targ. Onk., LXX: 'a pigeon.' For parallel tor, cf. Lev. 1:14; 5:7, 11; etc.
You might also find something worth reading here: https://www.academia.edu/25960731/COVENANT_MAKING_IN_GENESIS_15_9-18_IN_THE_CONTEXT_OF_ARCHEOLOGY_AND_YORUBA_WORLD_VIEW_-_Olugbenga_Olagunju
See also Christopher Begg, “The Birds in Genesis 15, 9-10,” BN 36 (1987): 7-11.
BN stands for Biblischen Notizen.
123 comments:
Semantics:-
"There's no difference between a pigeon and a dove in scientific nomenclature, but colloquial English tends to categorize them by size. Something called a dove is generally smaller than something called a pigeon, but that's not always the case. A common pigeon, for example, is called both a rock dove and a rock pigeon."
So your argument requires more precision.
I didn't think I was making an argument, but just presenting information, then seeing where it goes. I'm not dogmatic about how we translate Gen. 15:9, but it does appear that "young pigeon" or "pigeon" are possible translations. I also understand more cxlearly why translation normally say "young pigeon."
At any rate, I'm open to revising my viewpoint if the evidence merits such an adjustment.
I assume you're quoting James Barr above from his Semantics. Barr mentions scientific nomenclature, but that has little to do with how one renders Gen. 15:9 since it was written in a prescientific age. I'm trying to understand the ancient world; how the ancients understood these matters. I like Barr: however, if he's suggesting we filter the Hebrew text through later scientific developments, I disagree.
Gen. 15:9 speaks of both a dove and a pigeon; they don't seem to be the same when we consider the relevant passages from Tanakh. What you also call "my argument" is actually a series of quotes from translations or scholarly works. Barr needs to take up the matter with Alter, Sarna, et al.
See https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvvb7m70.7?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Compare http://classic.net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Pigeon
and https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Dove-Pigeon
Duncan, maybe you were not quoting from Barr. It was unclear to me. Sorry if I misunderstood your intent. Again, I was not making an argument for anything.
Let me rephrase. The arguments require more precision.
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/554182/what-is-difference-between-pigeons-and-doves
I have found no solid evidence regarding the translation of the two terms as yet. As you know, I have the same problem with a number of the birds in Deuteronomy.
If physical size is a criteria then an adult and a adolescent could be in view.
Lev 15:14 may indicate a size comparison 2 for 1. (tzippor might be a sparrow but all we can really say is it is a small bird & more than one was expected for a sacrifice).
We have other problems - Can we be sure that Jeremiah 8:7 is even talking about the same bird from the same term at a later time?
Barr is not a Zoologist so anything he quotes would be selective but Zoology is inherent to observation to some extent. Cloven hoofs, fins and scales among other items testify to it.
In some aboriginal languages certain animals are not differentiated by names, as all that fulfill the same functions are grouped together. This idea is used in Permaculture design with regard to native on non native species of plants etc. If one is needed to fulfill a specific role in a biosphere it can be transplanted from another system, where it fulfills the same function.
So none of what I quoted from the commentators (including Sarna) moves you one way or another? :)
Plus the fact that LXX seems pretty unambiguous. I also wonder why modern zoology should even come into play when we're dealing with an ancient text and Hebrew lexical semantics.
I admit that we do sometimes have ambiguity regarding birds in the Tanakh. Not only is Jeremiah 8:7 possibly an example, but we have Lev. 11 too with its inclusion of unclean birds.
I would appeal to Barr for semantics/linguistics rather than zoology. I believe the JSTOR link above is also worth reading.
Sarna's reason for understanding the bird to be a young pigeon in Gen. 15:9 is based on semantics and how the word is used in Leviticus. TDOT, vol. VI might likewise have an entry for the word. Have you read that info?
See https://juchre.org/targums/comp/gen15.htm#gen09
Which scholar/translator/philologist doubts that the bird is a pigeon?
https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Genesis.15.9?lang=bi
I believe we've discussed the Begg article before, but see the footnotes here from that article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43717587?seq=1
In Isreal we have:-
Rock pigeon, Columba livia
Stock dove, Columba oenas
Common wood pigeon, Columba palumbus
European turtle dove, Streptopelia turtur
Oriental turtle dove, Streptopelia orientalis
Eurasian collared dove, Streptopelia decaocto
African collared dove, Streptopelia roseogrisea
Laughing dove, Spilopelia senegalensis
Namaqua dove, Oena capensis
If e ignore modern categories we also have:-
Pin-tailed sandgrouse, Pterocles alchata
Spotted sandgrouse, Pterocles senegallus
Black-bellied sandgrouse, Pterocles orientalis
Crowned sandgrouse, Pterocles coronatus
Lichtenstein's sandgrouse, Pterocles lichtensteinii
Are you getting my point?
Why sacrifice pidgeons:-
"One of the primary issues is how quickly pigeons multiply. Pigeons live in large flocks of 20+. They breed as monogamous pairs that will raise up to six broods of 2 eggs a year. That comes out to 12 new pigeons per pair per year"
Why need to? a man made problem:-
"Archeologists at the University of Haifa have been digging up pigeon bones in the ancient settlements of Shivta and Sa'adon. Their findings, which show the pigeons were raised primarily to produce fertilizer to enhance agricultural success in the dry Negev, was published recently in the journal PLOS ONE"
Isn't Deuteronomy and expansion of Lev 11?
I understand your point, but we're talking thousands of years ago, when species were different and there's not much indication from the text that Gen. 15:9 is ambiguous in the respect you're suggesting. Why does not Leviticus clear up the issue along with LXX and so forth?
The understatement of the year is that we don't always know why Israel sacrificed doves or pigeons or other life forms. A lot of questions remain unanswered, but I also see plenty of evidence that pigeons were sacrificed.
See https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-byzantine-secret-of-surviving-in-the-negev-midget-pigeons-1.5957176
Have you read this lecture?:
https://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/vayikra/ama.html
We know why specific animals were sacrificed. Because they were domesticated and in surplus. An ancient tradition that spanned the globe until recently.
We made ourselves meso predators by converting habitat into food and eliminating apex predators.
http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/11/not-just-birds
"References to the uses of pigeon or doves appear in ancient Mesopotamian and Egyptian texts. At the 14th century BCE site of Emar, modern Tell Meskene, cuneiform documents note the sacrifice of doves for religious purposes. And according to the Papyrus Harris, the offerings Ramses III (1186-1155 BCE) gave to the temple at Karnak included 6510 doves. Pigeons have clearly played a part in the history of humankind, >>>likely since the first agricultural communities.<<<"
Pigeons not only maintain sites like this but also can expand them:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR9LV81OpRI
Lots of discussion about doves and pigeons here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Res_Rusticae_(Country_Matters)
Deut does expand on Leviticus 11, yes.
We don't know the exact reason why these animals were selected: we can make educated guesses and some may even be right. But we're never told in Scripture why they were chosen. Not all domestic animals were sacrificed and why pigeons/doves for certain sacrifices.
I don't identify myself as a mesopredator--sorry. With all due respect, let's not have another "meat is bad" discussion. I'm trying to avoid it and remain kind. I respect your right to abstain from meat.
mesopredator is a category of a function, NOT an ethic.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/59/9/779/248536
This is all about what is killed as opposed to what is eaten. IMO that was also the point in Deuteronomy. To call something unclean was to avoid it & this would include killing it.
If one understands the nature of a process does it need to be in scripture?
When we mess with the balance we will always end up being meso predators:-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/aug/11/camels-australia-slaughter
This is not debatable & has nothing to do with the choice of eating meat & for some people in some situations it cannot even be a choice, either to eat or not eat meat.
I suggest looking at the growth an reproduction rate of specific domestic animals as to which are the fastest reproducing.
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-ecology/hs-population-ecology/v/exponential-and-logistic-growth-in-populations
Why sheep are right at the top:-
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/lead/pdf/e-conf_05-06_background.pdf
Sheep gestation period of 152 days. Vary between 1 & 3.
Goat 150 days. Vary between 1 & 2.
Cattle 283 days. Vary between 1 & 2.
Pidgins 17-19 days. Mean clutch size of 2. Pidgins are still predated on by many raptors in the unclean list.
Now for comparison, Bats:-
"A pregnant female will carry her young for a gestation period of 40 days to six months. Then, she will give birth to one baby, called a pup. The pup will weigh about one-fourth as much as its mother at birth. Young bats drink milk from their mothers to survive, like other mammals."
and contrast with a mouse of similar mass:-
"The gestation period is about 19–21 days, and they give birth to a litter of 3–14 young (average six to eight). One female can have 5 to 10 litters per year, so the mouse population can increase very quickly. Breeding occurs throughout the year."
Can you see the patterns?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Prehistory
On the subject of mesopredators, where did I say it's an ethic? I just refused to be identified as one: IMO, to call humans, mesopredators, is a category mistake which is not about ethics. Not everything viewed as unclean was killed. What about dogs and pigs?
I'm not saying that the procedural explanations have to be in scripture, but part of understanding processes involved etic and emic approaches.
Eating meat isn't necessarily messing with the balance, but none of this discussion elucidated the OP. I'd rather stay on topic. However, I don't believe your theory adequately explains the Jewish sacrifices. They sacrificed doves and also grain. At times, the sacrifices are not specified.
They did not sacrifice grain. They put a portion/token on the fire and the priests had the rest.
"Not everything viewed as unclean was killed. What about dogs and pigs?" ??
I said that unclean animals were not to be killed, not being eaten is a side point.
Also, if you are referring to Leviticus it would be wild boar, not pigs.
I do not have enough data on dogs yet.
https://www.publish.csiro.au/AM/AM12026
But they are descended from wolves and are a man made phenomena to some extent.
I would categorise them at the moment as true meso predators.
Like vultures, there strength is in numbers. If diminished they lose there ability to dominate a kill or carion carcase & so the whole pack may starve.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Dzw_H5GhkfYC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=israel+asiatic+lion+wild+dog&source=bl&ots=PwHriqLbUy&sig=ACfU3U3FOixsuGb7FjXxc4jhREG-4UBJ9w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiA9v2emY7oAhUQi1wKHRHHDMUQ6AEwG3oECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=israel%20asiatic%20lion%20wild%20dog&f=false
We cannot know how all animals would interact as some are now extinct.
I never said that humans are a natural meso predator but through our actions over time we have had to act as one. The category is dictated by the action.
I've got other things going right now, but just wanted to make a few remarks.
This page and many others speak of grain being sacrificed under the law: https://bible.org/seriespage/grain-offering-leviticus-21-16-614-18-79-10-1012-13
See also: https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages/related-articles/sacrifice-in-ancient-israel
Part of your exact words about killing and mesopredators were:
"To call something unclean was to avoid it & this would include killing it."
The sentence is ambiguous: I thought you were saying that unclean animals should be avoided and killed. I guess you really meant the unclean animals should not be eaten or killed?
The site here refers to "pigs" being mentioned in Leviticus. It's not just me who refers to pigs in the Bible.
I reject the designation "mesopredators," whether anyone thinks we're naturally that way or became that way over time. Here's one definition of a mesopredator:
"A medium-sized predator which often increases in abundance when larger predators are eliminated. Raccoons, skunks, snakes, cats, and foxes are mesopredators."
You've seen the quote below, but I'd like to add for any potential readers:
Gordon J. Wenham wrote a journal article on Gen. 15. One thing he writes in footnote 4 of the article is:
"The RSV with most commentaries identifies the second bird mentioned here, gôzal, with ben-yônah 'young pigeon' of the sacrificial texts in Leviticus and Numbers. The only other mention of gôzal is Deut. 32:11, so the identification with benyônāh could perhaps be queried; but I see no grounds to do so."
From Wenham's WB Genesis comentary:
"There is some doubt about the identity of the last bird mentioned, 'turtledove' (), as the only other example of its use is in Deut 32:11. However, it seems likely that it is equivalent to the 'young pigeon' of the sacrificial texts."
[Hebrew words not reproduced in this post]
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/expeditions/laikipia-plateau-what-is-a-mesopredator/
www.haaretz.com/amp/archaeology/MAGAZINE-philistines-brought-their-pigs-with-them-to-ancient-israel-1.5469130
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-00701-y
http://www.biblebabel.net/the-dragons-of-babylon.php
See these animals including a relative of the komodo dragon.
All now gone & something else has to fill the gaps.
Humans are smaller than them all including Asiatic lions.
On the pig issue, I perused both links you submitted and neither link says the "pigs" in Leviticus were wild boars. The information even said that pigs mixed with wild boars at one point, which would be hard to do if only boars were around. I shall continue to call the animals referenced in Leviticus "pigs" like most works that I've read do. To be clear, neither link that I read proves the pigs in Leviticus weren't pigs.
See also https://books.google.com/books?id=UF8qDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT351&lpg=PT351&dq=pigs+in+leviticus+or+wild+boars&source=bl&ots=VnC8-JUHVE&sig=ACfU3U0zIJNcr_WfVwZavSaiZBWgbMN8vQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjg94_al5DoAhXhSt8KHfNDA9k4FBDoATAFegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=pigs%20in%20leviticus%20or%20wild%20boars&f=false
It discusses domestic pigs as well.
SEE https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/80-13.htm
Wild boar live in forest. Domestic pigs would not survive for long.
I was particularly focusing on Leviticus since you had mentioned that book. When I look in BDB, just for starters, notice that it includes swine as the first definition, then secondly, it has wild boar. The use in Psalms is figurative and considered to be a distinct sense from what we encounter in Leviticus.
Compare Isa. 65:4.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/07/20/423865233/why-the-pig-is-the-most-loved-and-most-loathed-animal-on-the-plate
http://www.jtsa.edu/the-story-of-pig-as-taboo
A staple food for many apex predators.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_boar
What we call pigs today did not exist at the time. The differences between boar and pig were less pronounced.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236610451_Pig_Husbandry_in_Iron_Age_Israel_and_Judah_New_Insights_Regarding_the_Origin_of_the_Taboo
Another article:
https://global.oup.com/obso/focus/focus_on_why_does_the_bible_prohibit_eating_pork/
One more that I will submit:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal/article/feasting-on-wild-boar-in-the-early-neolithic-evidence-from-an-11400yearold-placed-deposit-at-tappeh-asiab-central-zagros/76B86913F44FD590B769C2D6949AF62D/core-reader
https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-a-grizzly-bear-attacked-a-wild-boar
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/taeniasis-cysticercosis
https://feralhogs.extension.org/natural-predators-of-feral-hogs/
I am unable to get specifics for the near east but this gives some clue as to the keystone position that boar/pigs fill. The reproduction rate & time to maturity are important factors as the majority that are predated are very young. Notice owls vultures etc. Some of the types (even if we do not know the exact species) in the Deuteronomy listings.
This reminds me of recent research into fish stocks where the practice of netting the largest fish (or lobsters etc.) is totally destructive to them in the long term. It is better to catch the juveniles & leave the mature to continue to reproduce.
https://iss-foundation.org/is-catching-immature-fish-truly-unsustainable/
Already sent you this but,
http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2017/11/why-you-need-to-pay-more-attention-to-wild-pigs-and-peccaries/
Pigs and peccaries do not just benefit people. They are also an important food item for many wild carnivores, including such conservation icons as tigers, lions, leopards, jaguars and wolves. In areas where they remain abundant, these large, omnivorous landscape engineers are >>>ecological keystone species<<<.
https://jeremybiggs.wordpress.com/tag/wild-boar/
Pond creators
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vHXa3y8B7M
Also check out Jacob Milgrom's treatment of pigs/swine/boars in Leviticus 11. See his Anchor Bible Commentary, Leviticus 1-16.
Reading Milgrom & he is missing a fundamental point.
Pigs were used in other Hittite rituals clearly to ensure the fertility of women, as in a rite in which it is said, “let her give birth often like the pig” (Bo 3617 i 4´–17´).3
That if pig/boar were so good at proliferating, why did they not overrun the land. A land where they were not killed and eaten by humans? If the other clean animals were left in the same state they certainly would have. Many of there apex predators were already gone or extremely deminnished prior to the laws creation. Also apex predators of the size nessacary to predation of these species are just as capable of killing humans.
Milgrom cites Mary Douglass so he is already in trouble.
The fact of the matter is that ecology imposes itself on all cultures. Lands that were able to eat pigs in a sustainable way would have a considerably different environment to Israel. It may have been called a land flowing with milk and honey, in certain areas and that is the important point. Like much of the near East it was already very degraded in large areas. That is the nature of pastoralism when agriculture has already done it's damage. The only evidence of long term sustainable cultures on the planet are horticultural in nature and do not include lager settlements - cities.
https://qz.com/india/1038116/the-moment-in-history-when-muslims-began-to-see-dogs-as-dirty-impure-and-evil/
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/can-anything-stop-big-pig-invasion
Pigs without necessary predation.
You ask about pigs and proliferation. I don't think these articles have been posted yet:
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/703326?journalCode=nea
Other research: https://journals.indexcopernicus.com/search/article?articleId=2026523
More recent studies: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/35/17231
Those sorts of article probably have more to do with marketing than science.
https://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/something-jews-eating-pork/
https://youtu.be/qy_7V5Zw6QA
You have already seen this but it is a very good example of what happens when one removes or depletes the prey of an apex predator. Wild boar (which I still think is the correct focus) & camels are such prey. Camels being a favourite prey of wolf packs.
Removing enough of them would have resulted in https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/28-26.htm
As per this African cruely imposed example.
Duncan,
Every article link I posted is from an academic source. You cannot get more scientific than that. 😐
Also, I wonder if Milgrom quotes Douglas favorably. After all, she later adjusted her views.
Which scholar argues that Leviticus 11 is dealing with wild boars. You don't even have to tell me why he or she thinks that way. I just want one name
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wxXLBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316&dq=leviticus+11+%22wild+boar%22&source=bl&ots=-Xgk_2kq2W&sig=ACfU3U1_14i3ZIvF-jyVpusdzV4i8-Hx2g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjnsuymv5roAhVSXMAKHXfcDpw4ChDoATAFegQIBBAB#v=onepage&q=leviticus%2011%20%22wild%20boar%22&f=false
http://palaeobarn.com/sites/domestication.org.uk/files/downloads/4.pdf
Do I need a biblical scholar to argue my case?
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/08/taming-pig-took-some-wild-turns
The term "swine" in nondiscript and applies to domesticated and in domesticated boar.
The usage of the term in Psalms. Figurative or not has no bearing and it referred to a boar. The same Hebrew term. So what tells us that Leviticus is referring to domesticated animals, apart from commentaries? This is why I don't tend to respond to them. It's all about the data, the evidence.
Also what other unclean animals were domesticated?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=74geAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=canaanites+hunt+wild+boar&source=bl&ots=OjENU0H-Eq&sig=ACfU3U30Wpkz7bvH8d8siYCvkb8tl2HGNA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjHuueQx5roAhWrRRUIHa0JAnwQ6AEwCXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=canaanites%20hunt%20wild%20boar&f=false
www.researchgate.net/figure/Representations-of-wild-boar-on-arms-a-spear-from-Ras-Shamra-after-Schaeffer-1939_fig2_285683311/amp
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FV83DgAAQBAJ&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=ras+sharma+boar+hunters&source=bl&ots=JQb3wXVhHH&sig=ACfU3U3c_2OW8xbG6653r1PjEGUIvkQ9OA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiW94CT0ZroAhX0snEKHVyGCssQ6AEwBHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=ras%20sharma%20boar%20hunters&f=false
Note also the reference to bear. Juvenile boar are a favourite food.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285683311_Wild_boar_hunting_in_the_eastern_Mediterranean_from_the_2nd_to_the_1st_millenium_BC
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FfAWQh9ybFYC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=pigs+legion+%22wild+boar%22&source=bl&ots=zGVXOI-cC0&sig=ACfU3U1gLzs6Pf-ITNxN4XFbwBDPtFmIcg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8ov2c3JroAhWsUBUIHeLoBOEQ6AEwFnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=pigs%20legion%20wild%20boar&f=false
Just because the same Hebrew term is used doesn't suggest that the word means the same in both cases. You have to consider the context and other factors. Furthermore, BDB also distinguishes the usages in Leviticus/Psalms and so do other sources. It's common in academia to use commentaries, lexical, monographs,and journal articles.
I support appealing to the evidence too, but with academic scholarship, looking at the evidence does not happen in a vacuum.
I'm just asking for a scholarly and presumably, a reliable source.
I will read what you posted. However, I've noticed that wild boar tended to stay away from people and they lived in the wild
Duncan, I did find a scholarly reference to the boar being mentioned in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. See TDOT 4:21-300.
I don't agree, but at least I've now seen the claim in this work. It's not that I won't accept the claim, but I need more evidence.
Did you notice the footnote relating to a term at Ras Sharma that has usually been translated as pig herder but could also mean boar hunter?
"I've noticed that wild boar tended to stay away from people and they lived in the wild" - why is this a problem in Leviticus? Couldn't we say the same about many or most creatures listed? I still need to ask again - what, if anything tells us from scripture that we are talking about a domestic animal?
https://biblehub.com/topical/b/boar.htm
IMO the translation to "swine" tells us nothing new.
I am working from the premise that the unclean animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy are ecological in nature and not dietary per se. You have said that ecology was not recognised at that time. To me I does not need to be. After all, who's law was it for living long in the land?
Note that the wording in proverbs 11:22 is used as a contrast, as to my knowledge rings have been placed in bulls noses and not boar. Hyperbole?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UF8qDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT331&lpg=PT331&dq=%22leviticus%22+%22wild+boar%22&source=bl&ots=VnC9WEUFTF&sig=ACfU3U2qXOzbr5yYGLWDZz5XNwFf5dOSaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiemumio53oAhXfSxUIHSM0Aq4Q6AEwDHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22leviticus%22%20%22wild%20boar%22&f=false
Yes, I saw where the writer suggested that the term could be translated "boar hunters" based on a tradition about Adonis, who was reportedly killed by a wild boar. He writes that the tradition concerning Adnois "might suggest" this rendering.
Maybe scripture does not spell out that domestic pigs were forbidden, but the word in Lev. 11:7 (and Deuteronomy) can be rendered as either "pig, swine" or "wild boar." I never said it could not be translated that way. However, my contention has been that Leviticus/Deuteronomy are talking about a pig, not a wild boar. Okay, so the Hebrew Bible doesn't spell out which one we should choose, but the picture I get from OT scholarship and archaeology is that we're talking about a domestic animal for Lev./Deut. I submitted a long paper above that makes this argument.
I said the field that we know as ecology was not practiced then and that is what most ecologists themselves say. Anthropology or modern physics didn't exist in the Bronze/Iron ages either. Maybe you could argue for ecology in a loose sense because from the perspective of history, ecology did not exist then.
And numerous scholars have tried to provide a rationale for the Leviticus/Deuteronomy passages; to my knowledge, no satisfacvtory explanation has been proferred. So even if it's true (and I believe it) that the Law was YHWH's gift to Israel, it does not logically follow that Israel's concerns or the Law's concerns were primarily ecological.
I have Hartlley's commentary on Leviticus: he alternates between the translation "pig" and and the term, wild boar. See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UF8qDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT331&lpg=PT331&dq=%22leviticus%22+%22wild+boar%22&source=bl&ots=VnC9WEUFTF&sig=ACfU3U2qXOzbr5yYGLWDZz5XNwFf5dOSaQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiemumio53oAhXfSxUIHSM0Aq4Q6AEwDHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=boar&f=false
I'm going to delete my last post. Wrong paper.
I know you mentioned the commentaries, but these are just some initial thoughts about Proverbs 11:22:
Hermeneia Commentary (Bernd U. Schipper):
The pig (חֲזִיר) could refer either to a domesticated pig or to a wild boar (Ps 80:14). Both were regarded as unclean, and neither could be sacrificed or eaten (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8; cf. Isa 66:3). Against this background, v. 22a describes something very strange: a golden ring as a positively connoted piece of jewelry in an unclean animal.137 Regarding v. 22b, it should first be noted that beauty is not normally disparaged in the Hebrew Bible. Sarah (Gen 12:11, 14), Rachel (Gen 29:17), Joseph (Gen 39:6), and David (1 Sam 16:12) are all described as beautiful (יָפֶה).138 What is decisive in Prov 11:22 is that such a woman has rejected good taste.
You should read Michael Fox on Prov. 11:22: he alludes to the interesting sound effects of the Hebrew in the verse.
I think I have read all the theories regarding the animals in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. I do not think I have found one that does not admit problems or exceptions to any rule they try to apply. None recognise connection to the actual after effects. None even try to rule it out. In a ecological sense for all animals including birds and bats I have a theory that fits all if we are looking at the wild animals that were in the land from before Israel arrived. One would have to consider the fact that so many remains of domestic pigs have been found as an argument for a law that was being blatantly ignored and I see no reason to stop me contesting that the Hebrew term means wild boar in all instances. Also in the NT can one herd pigs? Shouldn't that be a drift, drove or litter?
Pigs are nothing like sheep and I have not seen any evidence of herding them. In fact
https://www.wideopenpets.com/meet-mangalitsa-sheep-pig-acts-like-dog/
They are smarter than dogs.
http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_13_November_2014/15.pdf
"There were numerous words for pigs of different varieties in Akkadian (Salonen 1974: 8)."
"The sudden disappearance of taboos against pig-eating in Egypt in the New Kingdom will then coincide with the absence of Israelites from Egypt and Canaanites barred to enter Egypt due to strict immigration laws under Amenhotep III. The Israelites and Hittites had many things in common; especially legal aspects and historiography and thus biblical chronology, if taken seriously, would argue that Israelite and Hittite interactivity, following the entry into Canaan in 1410 BCE until 1200 BCE, could account for an S-curve presence and absence of the pig-eating taboo with the Hittites."
A Taboo before the Law?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10488431
So far I have read nothing that muddies my conclusions.
Not also reference to the Hittites (sword god).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soTyjFlyaTE
This is what happens when you have the boar but kill the predators.
The do not seem very shy to me.
https://www.stopthewall.org/2019/05/04/israel-sets-hyenas-palestinians
http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/jordan-valley-farmers-say-wild-boars-wreaking-havoc
I would be interested in seeing what a specialist response might be to your findings/theory. I mean this sincerely and not sarcastically. Have you floated your ideas to a specialist of the Hebrew Bible or the ANE?
Have you read Nathan MacDonald's study on the food that ancient Israelites ate? what about J. Moskala's dissertation about animals in Leviticus?
I'm sure we have studies about herding pigs. Something to look into.
For pigherding and more, see https://books.google.com/books?id=GvJFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT142&lpg=PT142&dq=pigherding+antiquity&source=bl&ots=EkoXtL1xk8&sig=ACfU3U0uBVwtWGUNZvkwDlsb7whP18sxMg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMw4ae0Z_oAhVNUt8KHZfUB1kQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=pigherding%20antiquity&f=false
By using the search term "pigherding," I found lots of sources about the subject.
Swineherd is another one.
Moskala's dissertation is something I have not read yet as I do not see it as relevant. It's the history of commentaries. Period evidence is what has driven me so far.
I can spend some time on it but am not expecting much from it.
It true that there is at least one boar in a "herd" - https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/news/2015/12/051207-pigs-boars-cows-animals-science-weird
😁
"The social structure of the wild boar includes the presence of solitary adult males who live isolated from the herd, and groups of females with young boars, with four individuals representing the most frequent group size (Bon et al. 1986; Rosell et al. 2004). "
I woul not define this as a herd.
I have not read McDonald's study but I believe that he thinks grain was a prominent staple.
If that is the case it is surprising to me that the tanakh does not mention much about snake bites.
http://www.talmudology.com/jeremybrownmdgmailcom/2014/12/21/yevamot-116b-deadly-snakebites
For comparison:-
https://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2016/10/07/bangladesh-growing-economy-through-advances-in-agriculture
https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0000860
"Alongside sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs, the Israelites also kept other domestic animals, such as camels, donkeys, and dogs."
From Nathan MacDonald's book.
He does also say that grain was a big part of the Jewish diet.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/news/2014/2/140210-domesticated-camels-israel-bible-archaeology-science
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-near-eastern-world/did-camels-exist-in-biblical-times/
So camels could well have existed in Israel, but again, I doubt they were domesticated.
I think I already said that wolves hunt camels.
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/dogs-in-the-bible/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Leviticus%2b27:11,Leviticus%2b27:27&version=CEV&interface=amp
Donkeys are not in the same category.
MacDonald's book on the next page talks about the sharp decline in hunting of wild animals through the Israelite period. He talks about Habitat loss which I can agree with.
These patterns happen over and over again through the world history.
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/regional/2018/07/06/four-animals-being-eaten-into-extinction-by-gourmets-in-china-and-around-the-world
This and Major habitat loss has been going on since the 1300's in chain. Worth looking at how many old forest teak trees were cut down to build the Chinese sea fleet. How the great river became the yellow river etc.
pg 35. jumps to quotes from the rabbinic period - I think this book is too general in time to be useful.
Also finding bones is not very useful contextually speaking. The analysis of waste dumps has moved on somewhat.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OmS9GQzqfXwC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22Alongside+sheep,+goats,+cattle,+and+pigs,+the+Israelites+also+kept+other+domestic+animals,+such+as+camels,+donkeys,+and+dogs.%22&source=bl&ots=BMfKH6E4BK&sig=ACfU3U2-yA_QBnXqmFxUGKZtr6ldeVKaxQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiKzu2nlKHoAhXioXEKHTK2AD4Q6AEwAHoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=pigs%20are%20difficult%20to%20herd&f=false
Just occurred to me this week is that Matthew 7:6 is probably referring to wild boar as compared with dogs both tearing to pieces.
The Greek nominative singular form is χοῖρος. Where is this word everu sed of wild boars? Interestingly, the LXX apparently does not use χοῖρος to reference boars of swine. On the other hand, I recall the passage in Homer's Odyssey wherein men become "pigs." I.e., they are porcified.
See also Mark 5:11 concerning herds.
Would not associate pigs with the tearing action. Wild boar can be aggressive and dangerous.
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/choiros
https://thepigsite.com/articles/top-tips-for-reducing-aggression-in-sows-and-boars
We started out talking about pigeons, but spent more time discussing pigs :)
Sorry but it's the educator/servant in me that wants to stay on track.
Is there any indication that these "Pigs" have young?
How many animals in the world as mothers cannot be aggressive?
But to put the tearing on a par with dogs is another matter. These are much wilder dogs than we generally see today. Even domestic dogs as depicted in Persian statues are not what we see today.
But no point arguing this as we can go round and round arguing language Vs reality.
There is evidence that pigs may be aggressive, even dangerous. However, I'm wondering whether Jesus' words should not be understood figuratively. Maybe we should not read too much into the imagery, which could be hyperbolic.
See the explanation about χοῖρος in the Odyssey. At times, the word is even rendered "piglets."
https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/4663.chapter-2-encounter-visit-and-celebration-homeric-layering-odyssey-14-
https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/3759.10-odysseus-and-the-boar
This is where the language gets tricky, especially if you take the term to mean hairless.
I have read the Odyssey before, but only in translation.
I think you see that Homer is distinguishing a pig from a boar. Because of the classics program that I finished, I had to read plenty of the Iliad in Greek and basically the entire Odyssey. We also Hesiod's Theogony and his Works and Days.
Wild pig attacks on humans
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/151/
"It is curious that the pig in this comparison loses its teeth, and the scholia offer little clarification. In Eustathius’ opinion, the verses in question may refer to a Cypriot law that allowed a person whose crops are damaged by another’s pig to knock its teeth out.[6] A reference to a particular Cypriot law is unlikely, to say the least, but perhaps Iros’ threat could reflect some similar, and more widely known, practice of detoothing pigs in defense of crops. What seems tolerably clear is only that Odysseus is being teased and threatened by this uncomplimentary comparison. Teeth, of course, are the primary characteristic of the boar, the words for tooth and tusk being the same in Greek, just as the words for the wild boar and domestic swine are too. The boar’s white tusks, which the animal menacingly sharpens, are a constant presence in similes, and a toothless pig seems to be the very opposite of its fiery wild counterpart."
The Harvard page you posted shows that Homer distinguishes between the boar and a pig, even if later Greek does not.
A friend sent me this article today: https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2020/03/near-eastern-pig
https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/animal-bones-and-archaeology/
Isn't it amazing that so much detail can be obtained from so little 😆
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/35/17231
No big deal, but I also posted the pnas link above. The book coming out by the MIT prof looks interesting.
My point on posting the pnas study is that it would seem that anatomical structure is more important than DNA.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45564-7
https://theboaringtruth.org/purity
https://digitalcommons.augustana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=biolstudent
Wild boar as a keystone.
Post a Comment