Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Ritual Purity

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Hyam Maccoby" <h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Ritual Purity
  • Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 13:09:43 +0100


Dear Loren,
You wrote:

>Depending on the rabbinic text we follow, one of the
Noahide commandments prohibits eating flesh of living
creatures (limbs torn from a living animal), which
doesn't exactly square with what's normally considered
"universal ethical principles". And note the third
injunction of the apostolic decree of Acts 15:19-20,
which prohibits eating meat from an animal that's been
strangled.<

While the injunction about limbs torn from a living animal is not a
universal moral principle in itself, it is a striking exemplification of a
universal moral principle, namely, humane treatment of animals. Actually,
there is a history to the rabbis' choice of this as one of the Seven Laws.
Earlier, as the Book of Jubilees shows, its place was taken by another law -
forbidding Gentiles to drink the blood of animals. This was a very natural
interpretation of Genesis 9:4 ' flesh with the life thereof, which is the
blood thereof, shall ye not eat' (this verse forms part of the biblical
basis of the Noahide Laws). However the post-Destruction rabbis realised
that they could not interpret this verse as a prohibition against eating
blood, since Gentiles were explicitly permitted to eat animals from which
the blood had not been drained by Deut. 14:21. They therefore
re-interpreted Gen. 9:4 (rather forcedly) to refer to limbs torn from a
living animal. At the Jerusalem Council, however, it seems that the older
rule was still in force, for James included in his rules for Gentiles 'to
abstain from anything that has been strangled', i.e. from which the blood
has not been drained. Actually, the later rabbinic interpretation is closer
to my definition of the Noahide Laws as moral laws; for there is nothing
immoral about eating blood, but there is definitely something very immoral
about the cruel treatment of animals.

With very best wishes,

Hyam
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________


Dr.Hyam Maccoby
Research Professor
Centre for Jewish Studies
University of Leeds
Leeds.LS2
Direct lines: tel. +44 (0)113 268 1972
fax +44 (0)113 268 0041
e-mail: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loren Rosson" <rossoiii AT yahoo.com>
To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.metalab.unc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 11:52 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: Ritual Purity


Hyam, Dennis, and all --

I've been noticing some remarks about Noahide laws and
God fearers which could perhaps be qualified more
carefully. For instance, Hyam wrote:

>...laws that could never form part of the Noahide
>Laws are the dietary laws, because they
>are part of the Holiness Code, which again define
>the Jews as a priest-nation... the Noahide Laws are
>universal ethical principles (which apply to all
>mankind),while the ceremonial laws of the Holiness
Code,
>of which circumcision is the most important,
>form the Rule of the priest-nation, the Jews.

Dennis DeJarnette wrote:

>God fearers kept the Sabbath, and the Law makes
>it quite clear that a dweller in the land...did
>in fact observe the sabbath and other OT practices.

What makes you think all God fearers kept the sabbath?
I think you mean resident aliens (the God fearers who
lived in Palestine), since you're citing the
regulations for sojourners/aliens in Lev 17-26.
Prohibitions against offering sacrifices to other
gods, eating blood, eating leavened bread during
passover, and working on the sabbath usually applied
to resident aliens alone.

The rabbinic sources may not exactly offer us an
untainted lens through which to examine first century
beliefs, but I agree with Hyam that "Noahide law"
isn't an anachronism; I've confidence that variations
of the Noahide commandments could be found across the
spectrum of pre-70 Judaism(s). It's interesting that
the apostolic decree represents a cross between God
fearer (prohibitions 2 & 3) and resident alien
(prohibitions 1 & 4) obligations. That all four of
these were non-negotiables for the apostles (if Acts
is trustworthy) would seem to indicate the level of
sensitivity and care taken to insure that the pagan
nations wouldn't get any "wrong ideas" as Christianity
expanded throughout the Greco-Roman world.

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii AT yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

---
You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: h.z.maccoby AT leeds.ac.uk
To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')





  • Ritual Purity, Dennis De Jarnette, 06/04/2002
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Re: Ritual Purity, Loren Rosson, 06/04/2002
    • Re: Ritual Purity, Hyam Maccoby, 06/04/2002

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page