
I Would Rather Be Herod’s Pig: The History of a Taboo - lermontov
http://blog.longreads.com/2015/10/14/i-would-rather-be-herods-pig-the-history-of-a-taboo/
======
mirimir
Great article!

I didn't know that Roman cuisine featured "liquamen—a fermented fish sauce
central to Roman cuisine".

~~~
dTal
That'd odd, I've always heard it was called "garum".

~~~
zxexz
As did I. According to Wikipedia[0], "Liquamen was a similar preparation, and
at times the two were synonymous."

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garum)

------
tpeo
From the history of pig farming in the Near East, it seems they enjoyed the
current status of pidgeons, rats and insects in the psychological food
hierarchy.

------
ars
It's a great story, but not entirely true. Jews do not avoid pig for the
reasons listed but simply because God said not to eat pig. That's it. No other
reason.

And note there are a TON of animals Jews don't eat, not just pig. Yet people
seem to focus on the pig more than any other.

This says more about them than about the Jews.

~~~
timv
Except the article makes no claims about why _Jews_ avoid pigs, other than a
few minor observations such as:

\- Israelites came to consider pork avoidance a central element of their
identity.

\- Scriptural dietary rules grew more significant with time.

\- God expresses his fury at a few people who have eaten “swine’s flesh, and
broth of abominable things.”

\- even in the face of death, a Jew must refuse pork in order to remain true
to his people.

The reasons listed in the first section of the article are referring to other
ancient near eastern cultures, whose reason for avoiding eating pork products
certainly _wasn 't_ due to Levitical laws.

In the latter section an emphasis is made on the fact that avoid pigs became
more of an issue in the post-exilic period when the Jews found themselves
ruled by cultures that _did_ eat pig meat, and the point of difference was
more apparent.

So, I'm really not sure which part of the article you think is _" not entirely
true"_. I can't vouch for the overall accuracy of it, but its representation
of Jewish culture and history seems reasonable accurate to me.

~~~
ars
Have you ever heard the saying a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?

> even in the face of death, a Jew must refuse pork in order to remain true to
> his people

Both you and the author have completely misunderstood this episode.

There is NO law requiring death from eating pork! There is however a law that
if an oppressor tries to make someone violate a law in public you must must
accept death rather than comply with even the most minor offence.

The important part here is "in public".

Pork simply has nothing whatsoever to do with it!

And that's just one of the reasons this article, while a nice story, is simply
not accurate.

(At least about Jews, but when it gets the part I know well wrong it doesn't
give me much confidence in the rest where I don't have the knowledge to check
- it's definitely a great story though.)

~~~
timv
> 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
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.

