On Monday, we've looked primarily at Leviticus:11
Just to be a brief refresher
Leviticus:11, which is the classic, the main text
about the food taboos
the food laws in the Hebrew Scriptures, right?
And I discussed in class two things
One is part and part so of
a purity-impurity system, holiness-not holy system
which is part and part so of Leviticus's world view
with the tabernacle, the presence of God
and the camp and the community
And impurity must be kept away from the holy
which is where God is
Other point was that Leviticus:11 is
an enormously complicated chapter
It dividing animals by type
and then dividing and classifying
it classifying and classifying
Fancy schmancy word is TAXONOMY
Leviticus:11 is all about taxonomy, right?
the dividing creatures into classes
These classes are pure, may be eaten
These are not, may not be eaten
That's what we've spoken about on Monday
Okay, now let's go right ahead
Next big point coming up
Above and beyond and aside
from this impurity system
God and holiness and all that
which is the rhetoric of Leviticus:11
The rhetoric of the food laws
It is obvious that the food laws
also are doing something
Right, they are erecting social barriers
between those who maintain them
and those who do not, right?
So famously, right?
So it's a problem if you invite a Jew
over to your house to eat, right?
What are you gonna serve them
What are you gonna do
What about dishes, and silverware
and, you know, you need all the special food
Right, if you have a law ritually observant Jew
the food laws inhabit social intercourse
between that ritually observant Jew
and anyone else
Not just necessarily only gentiles
Non-ritually-observant Jews, right?
So this is one of the rituals in the Torah
whose observance erects social barriers
whose observance erects social boundaries
Now one can ask the interesting question
Is this an unintended artifact?
Or is this perhaps an intended artifact
Namely, all above and beyond this
holiness and impurity rhetoric, right
the point of these things is to keep the Israelites
and then after them, Jews, separate
Separate from whom, you ask
Separate from everybody else
And that is where some of the language in Leviticus
which we saw briefly on Monday
we are gonna see that again
There are some verses in Leviticus
in this context
which would support such a reading
So even if the food laws began as
coming out of a holiness and purity system, mindset
At some point in their history
they turn into a vehicle for erecting
social barriers between Jews and non-Jews
That's either a good thing, or a bad thing
I would not answer that question, right
You are free to have your opinion on that subject
Right? But there surely is a consequence
Furthermore, make this point clear
Even when the Temple is destroyed
And the Jewish ritual purity system disappears
because there is no more holy
there is no more Temple
there are no more priests serving
in the sacred priesting, bringing sacrificial offerings
All that is gone
So the whole notion of purity and impurity
sort of loses sense
Even after that happens
the food laws will endure
because the food laws would still serve this function
of maintaining social barrier
between Jews and non-Jews
Now if you are a rabbinic Jew
that of course you think is a good thing
social barriers, stay away from gentiles
You think that's a good thing
As I said, you are free to disagree
But the perspective of our classical rabbinic text
is we are very much aware of the fact
that the consequences of the food laws
is social separation
So if you don't like Jews
use social separation as an argument against them
Jews are very clannish, Jews stick together
Jews don't associate with the rest of the world
Jews feel superior
You can use all kinds of rhetoric
But if you are a law-observance Jew, then you say
These are the ways, one of them means
by which we Jews are able to
maintain our identity
and focus on the worship of the Lord the way we want to
So here are two very rich passages
from rabbinic text
which reflect the rabbinic perspective on things
But they show that the rabbis are aware
that the food laws have a powerful social component
So we can spend lots of time
on these two passages, I won't
But they are worth chewing on, as it were
First of all, Sifra on Leviticus
One of it is Sifra
is an old rabbinic commentary on Leviticus
It's all you need to know
Eleazar ben Azariah said
A person should not say
I have no desire to wear shaatnez
Look at the footnote
you're gonna know what that is
I have no desire to eat pork
I have no desire to have forbidden sex
That's not what a person is supposed to say
A person should not say
My passions, my lusts are dead
It's not true
I have passions and lusts
Rather, a person should say
I would like to
I would love to wear shaatnez
I would love to have forbidden sex
I know they are not the same
I know that, but okay
I would like to, but what can I do?
My father in heaven has decreed that
that such behavior is forbidden for me
What is the scriptural basis for this?
This Scripture says
I have separated you from the nations
that you should be mine
That's the verse I was referring to
Leviticus itself says that
separation of Israelites from the nations
and by extension Jews from the nations
That's what God wants
And these laws, among them the food laws
have accomplished this
So we have the overlap between
the avoidance of forbidden food
with the avoidance of forbidden sex
And as anybody takes Anthropology 101 knows
Food equals sex
You understand what I'm saying
when culture set up social systems
symbolic systems, etc.
Food often represents sex
And sex is often described, or referred to
in terms of food
Okay, I guess you understand what you are doing
when you get on a date?
First you need to do is you eat
Okay, just may explain that to you
Okay, the result is that he separates from sin
and accepts upon himself the kingdom of heaven
Okay, I'm not quite sure how that last line
fits with what came before
But okay, so point No.1 in this first passage is
We are aware of the separation
And that's precisely the point
That's part and part so of holiness
Right, we want to be like everybody else
We want to have forbidden sex
eat pork and wear shaatnez
like the gentiles do
But what can I do
when my father in heaven has prohibited it
Story No.2, from Avot de Rabbi Nathan
That's another ancient rabbinic book
That's what we need to know
When R. Aqiva went to Rome
he was slandered before a certain official
I don't know what that sentence is doing there
as I say it in the footnote
So let's just move right along
Rabbi Aqiva was the big name
in the rabbinic literature, right?
He's remembered as the smartest
the brightest, the biggest, the best
the most penetrating, the most learned
of all the rabbis
That's Rabbi Aqiva
So when he went to Rome
So, he, some Roman official
sent him two beautiful women to him
I guess it's part of hospitality
They were bathed and anointed
and outfitted like brides
And all night they kept descending upon him
this one saying, turn to me
and this one saying, turn to me
But he sat between them and spat
and did not face them
In the morning they went off
and complained to the official and said to him
We would rather die than be given to this man
or perhaps a man like this
The official sent for him and asked
Why did you not do with these women
as men generally do with women?
Are they not beautiful?
Are they not human beings like you?
Did not He who created them create you?
Whoop, this Roman official knows
how to really turn up the theological flame, right?
He also, he's claiming to be reading Scripture
including Malachi and other things
So in other words, this is a rabbinic story
So the rabbis get to tell this story
So Roman official says
What's wrong with the official saying?
Roman officials questioning separation
Why are you Jews separate?
Why don't you mingle with gentiles?
Aren't gentiles the product of the same god
who created you?
This is a rabbinic text in Hebrew
So this is a text in which we rabbis
we rabbinic Jews
are reflecting to ourselves about ourselves
We put this critique in the mouth of an outsider
What does R. Aqiva say in reply?
What's his response?
What could I do? R. Aquiva said
I was overcome by their breath of carrion
pork and other forbidden meats
As I join there to kiss them
I can smell the pork on their breath
And I was merely turned off
Once again, this story, we see clearly
food equals sex
avoidance of prohibited food means
avoidance of prohibited sex
Which is another way of saying
Separation from the gentiles
And we know that there is a theological problem
involved in the separation
Because after all, that is not the same God
who created them and created you?
Are they not human beings like yourselves?
Are they not beautiful?
On the contrary, gentile women are very beautiful
They are very desirable
But, go back to the language of the first story
What can I do? My father has prohibited
Or language of this story
What can I do?
I smell the forbidden food on their breath
So the food law, summarize
The food laws have served
and for traditional Jews
Jewish ritually observant people
Right, to continue to serve
as a powerful barrier
a powerful boundary marker
between those who observe them
ritually observant Jews and everybody else
Non-ritually observant Jews
and of course, perforce, gentiles
In the eyes of these text, that's a good thing
This is how we Jews show our devotion to God
This is how we show our devotion to the Torah
In the eyes of outsiders
It's problematic
as the Roman official says
Are we not human beings like yourselves?
And Rabbis know that
Okay, I'm gonna serve you
right from here to early Christianity
Questions?
Anybody has any insights into these two stories?
which are both terrific, I think
Especially the second one is a terrific story
Questions? Observations? Yoni
Why doesn't Rabbi Aqiva just
come straight out and say
It's just forbidden for me to lie with
the foreign woman
Or perhaps he was married
Why does?
Why does he say this?
He's seemingly saying that, sort of the
external circumstance that turns him off
But perhaps in the normal circumstance?
He would have yielded?
No, surely all gentiles have the breath
of carrion, and pork and forbidden meat
smell in their breath
Cos gentiles eat the stuff all the time
as they are allowed to do
And had they brushed their teeth?
Had they brushed their teeth, and mouth washed
take Listerine and so, you know
whatever Rabbi Aqiva then have yielded?
I assume this is a metaphysical breath
that he's smelling on their breath
Not the actual breath, right?
This is surely meant to be
He smells their gentile-ness
which is represented here by the forbidden food
And he knows he can't
He want to, he may want to, but he can't
Yes, David?
There is a little bit tension
between these two passages
Yes, yes, good
Because in the first, there's the sort of
uninformed desire for forbidden things
which the law then prevents this person from go into it
Okay
The second, the law has been internalized in such a way
that this other passion is involved
which creates repugnant towards the thing forbidden
Well, that's not contradictions
But they are not quite the same either, right?
if that's what you are suggesting, right
Well, so in the first, the desire is
the tension is between the law and the desire
Right
The second, there's this other desire
which is consistent from law
That's true, yes, good point, right
So that has been internalized, yes
That's very good, right
Good, so I guess the result of successfully
applying passage No.1 would be passage No.2
Right, which one has repressed
one's own desire to this extent
Which would be consistent with Aristotle
in such benefits
Ah, that I don't know
In ten seconds realize, what is that
Aristotle says that the good person is the one
who wants to do habitually
was good for that person
So the law has been internalized
Well, that's nice
Okay, ready to go down to Christianity
Now, so to summarize what I said on Monday
and to summarize what I just said now
The logic of the food laws is
God makes distinctions, right?
Within the creation, God created everything
Cos God is the universal God
God is universal creator
All the world and all that is therein
comes from God
That comes straight out of the Book of Genesis
However, within that creation, right
God makes distinctions
Not everybody, not everything
not every animal is the same
That's the message that the rabbis at least took
from the Book of Genesis
took from the Book of Leviticus
and then applied
The logic of Christianity, of course, is
God does not make distinctions
Cos all are one alike in Christ Jesus
There is no longer Jew or Greek
male or female, slave or free in Christ
Cos you are all one
So the whole point of Christianity is to say that
this ethnic logic of Judaism
has been replaced
has been superseded
by the new logic in which
God does not make distinction
That's a quote from Paul
Right, there is no favoritism
or showing favor in God's eyes
Cos all alike are equal
Therefore, I understand completely the Christian logic
What the Christian logic, ccording to the Christian logic
we are going to do away with the food laws
we are going to do away with circumcision
And as we'll see next week
We are going to do away with the Sabbath
Well, Sabbath is trickier
Cos it accomplish some equivalent of their own
But okay, let's leave the Sabbath aside for a moment
But when we get rid of the food laws
We get rid of the circumcision
Because those are signs, again, of distinction
These are things that make Jews separate, different
And the whole point in the new dispensation
is that God shows no favor
Okay? That's the big point
Anybody wanna argue with me about that?
No, okay
Oh, yes, and argument taker!
Yes, hi
I don't have an argument, just clarification
But in modern statement, there is always
There wouldn't be distinction
so long as an individual accepted
Christ as a savior
Right, so, right, exactly
So the language of Paul, of course
You are all one in Christ Jesus
which is Galatians:3
Right, so that of course assumes that
You are all one because you are all in Christ Jesus
i.e., you are accepting Christ
So the point of Paul would be that
the belief in Christ trumps any ethnic distraction
ethnic derivation or social station, right
Slave, free, Jew, gentile, male, female
Right, these distinctions endure in the real world
on the street, right, in the house
right, in the market place, they endure
But in the kingdom of heaven
they don't mean anything
If that works, everybody out there
is gonna have faith in Jesus
It turns out that everybody
out there have faith in Jesus
not just those precinct Jews who don't go along
but a lot of gentiles out there
it takes a long time to get them to convert to Jesus
So how about them?
Well, okay, then needing more complicated theology
But at least Paul of this early stage of Christianity
It's all simple
So at least, theoretically at least
We are trumping these old distinctions
that were maintain by Judaism, right
These distinctions are all going to be
torn down and replaced
Do you accept that?
Yep
Okay
That's good enough
Okay, other questions or observations?
Okay, this is very deep waters we are assuming it
I hope you understand, right?
At least there are things that
one needs to think about
Okay, let's go back to where we are
Let's see how this works out in the case of the
the case of the food laws
So circumcision we dealt with already
Circumcision is just replaced, right
Christianity says God never really wanted
physical circumcision
Or maybe God did want briefly with Abraham, right?
But after that that's not what God really want
So that's, but whatever
We'll see we've already seen that kind of rhetoric
Now we find the same thing
in question with the food laws
So Justin of course has the same old theory
that we've already seen, right?
His favorite theory to explain all these
ritual laws of the Hebrew Bible, right
Where Justin says
these ritual laws were given by God
to the Jews, for the Jews
not for humanity at large
And it's given to the Jews
because the Jews need these
Well, that's a different way of explaining it
The Jews ought to be punished
because they are sinful
and/or b, the Jews need constant reminder
as to worship God
Cos without these constant reminders
every ten seconds, they'd be running off in rebellion
Right, so how do you keep them
off streets and out of trouble?
Give them lots of homework
Just pile of work
It doesn't make any sense
It doesn't mean anything
In itself it means nothing
The point is simply, is to keep these
meaningless commands upon them
So they'll be so busy doing them
that this way they won't rebel
That's version b of the same basic explanation
In other words, the ritual commands
are not what God really wants
Since we Christians understand this
Therefore we Christians don't observe these things
Okay, that's Justin
That's his big theory
So onto circumcision
we see it now in the case of food laws
and we'll see it again next week
in connection with the Sabbath
Okay, constant reminders of the divine presence
Okay, there's the passage in Chapter 20
Skip the next bullet point, which is quite interesting
But I'm not, I'm gonna move along
It's remarkable how little
Justin says about the food laws
This I don't clearly understand
Justin has tons of stuff about circumcision
There must be a dozen paragraphs about circumcision
He has a fair amount about the Sabbath
as we'll see from a number of references about Sabbath
And I would have expected him to talk
grand, eloquently about the food laws
But he doesn't
He has one paragraph or two
sentences or two
I don't really understands that
If any of you have bright explanation
bright idea to explain why Justin
does not make much of the Jewish food laws
whereas he makes much of circumcision
and makes much of Sabbath
If you have any bright ideas to explain that
I would be happy to hear them
Maybe you will get a PhD, too
But that's why I asked you to
read the passage in Barnabas
A, because it's inherently fascinating
and B, it gives you a little more
Christian perspective on the food laws
So Barnabas, so just briefly about Barnabas, right
This is an, usually called an epistle of Barnabas
Probably not a letter, it's probably a sermon
Some early Christian text
Barnabas appears in the Book of Acts
as the travelling companion of Paul
So it's not really by Barnabas
At the same name
This would presumably be some anonymous text
that's attributed to Barnabas to
the travelling companion of Paul
Anyway, so early Christian text
probably around the year 130
Again, we think that Justin is around year 160
maybe then later, around 160s
This is probably a generation before Justin
That's epistle of Barnabas
Epistle of Barnabas is also interested in
the same themes with
Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho
He's interested in rebutting Jewish claims
He's interested in rebutting Jewish readings of Scripture
in order to promote Christian readings of Scripture
So except that Justin is much longer
and laid up much more fully, easier to follow
That's why we are reading more Justin than Barnabas
But here on the food laws
Barnabas has this one really spectacular chapter
which sort of makes up for
Justin's silence on the subject
So what do we see in Barnabas?
Barnabas is the classic example of
Christian's allegorizing of the laws
And this I mentioned briefly on Monday
Now I'll explain a little more fully
Right, the laws are allegorized
by which we mean
That the laws that were stated in Scripture
have their true meaning
not in their literal observance
But rather, the laws represent, right, moral truths
that we Christians are to extract from Scripture
And having extracted
these moral truths from Scripture
We don't need to observe the actual literal law
Cos the literalness of the laws
has been exhausted by its moral teaching
its moral meanings
This is not what Justin is doing on the ritual laws
for the most part
Right, he says the ritual laws are literal
But God gave them just to the Israelites
to punish them
Or to keep burdens of commandments upon them
Cos God doesn't like them
God wants to punish them
So they are very literal, Justin says
They ends up in the same place
We Christians don't have to observe them
But his reading of Scripture is very different
This reading says, no
They are not literal
And the Jews mistake Scripture
miscomprehends Scripture
when they think, don't eat pork means
don't eat pork
Because what Scripture really means
is the moral truth
expressed in this language of food prohibitions
Then Barnabas then gives you a long list
you know, explaining to you what are these
negative moral qualities
that we Christians are to avoid
that Scripture is trying to teach us
we Christians are to avoid
So he explains that some of these animals
represent different moral qualities
or some of these animals represent
different kinds of people
All of whom have these negative qualities
that we Christians are to avoid
Okay, and some of them are quite interesting
which I won't repeat here now
I wish you go read them
Cos some them deal of course with
his notions of sexual habits of animals
which represents sexual habits
that we human should avoid
Where he gets this information about animals
and their sexual habits is quite fascinating
I don't know
But anyway, so he thinks some of these animals
represent certain kinds of sexual acts
that we human should avoid and any
avoid people alike who do these things
Anyway, that's not sedition tiltation
you get to read the passage of Barnabas
I don't know what it is
Okay, so that's Barnabas, so
And it is allegorical
In other words, the Jews think
Don't eat pork means don't eat port
But we Christians know that's not
what the passage really means
Yes
If God really meant that
the Jews shouldn't associate with
people like that
Why didn't he just say it?
Oh, what a wonderful question
If God wants to say
avoid people who are piggish
avoid people who are aggressive
or avoid people who have, are sexually loose
Then why doesn't God just say that?
It's foreshadowing Jesus
is gonna speak in parables?
Yes, the whole logic here
that God does not say, speak plainly
Something like casting pearl before swine, right?
The message is semi-concealed
The message needs to be revealed
Perhaps it's a symbol for
it's a metaphor for Jesus himself, right
to come to has to be reveal
thus divine Messiah
Similarly, the truths of the Scripture
aren't lying on the ground
They needs to be excavated from Scripture
Yes, this is part of divine mystery of
how God works
Yes, David?
From a rabbinic perspective
you say God is a protestant
You know that he just tells people to do something
They may not actually do it
If he gives them this whole
complicated sort of guidelines
they'll do a lot better
than if he just gives them a single command?
Well, it's kind of a psychological analysis
You think that works?
The message is morally effective because
precisely because it's not clear
precisely because it's not on the surface
precisely because you have to work at it
Does that makes the message, therefore
more convincing, more value-laden
Great question
I guess maybe if God
If you spoke in the way we thought he should
and what's relevant for him, I don't know
Yes, that's another excellent questions given, right
You know, God is gonna like
You got a beer, you take a beer, a bar
There was God
I was watching prohibition
out there out of my mind
Right, so you got to a Saloon
and are you drinking beer
Does God just, you know, such, chatting?
No, that's not the way God talks
Although according to rabbinic, one rabbinic view
God speaks in the manner in which man speaks
Yeah, right, so of course sometimes
God does talk that way in Scripture
That's how we deal with problematic passages
where the language seems a little to coarse
Or the theological conception
seems a little too friendly?
For what we imagined God to be like
Yes, so it's a complicated question
But it's all about the divine speech
That fundamentally is the answer
Right, divine speech is not the same
as human speech
And divine speech requires extra interpretation
The way you and I don't
require extra interpretation
Because, a, we are just blokes, human blokes
Second, well, we don't deserve it
But God, you have to work at it
Okay, great question
I give you, as we read
this very nice article by Peter Tomson
A Dutch scholar, right
who is interested in, what we call
community discourse, right
How the language of impure and pure foods
works in early Christian text
He goes over all the main Christian text
So I don't need to spend too much time doing them
But let's briefly look at two of the main ones
which is Mark:7 and Acts:10
These are get undiscussed by Tomson
so I just want to bring that to your attention
So the two main early Christian passages
from the Gospels about the food laws are these two
Mark:7 and Acts:10
We now are gotta focus on the main point
So quickly, let's look at Mark:7
Now in the Pharisees and some of the scribes
who had come from Jerusalem
gathered around him, or around Jesus
They noticed that some of his disciples
were eating with defiled hands
that is, without washing them
Right, as you know, ritually observant Jews
to this day will wash their hands ritually
before eating bread
Cos bread is how you announce it's a meal
Not a snack, but a meal, okay
For the Pharisees, and all the Jews
do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands
thus observing the tradition of the elders
Okay, an important phrase
Tradition of the elders
Pharisees uphold tradition
Is it say anywhere in the Scripture
that you need to wash your hands before you eat
I'll give you a hint
Does it say anywhere in the Scripture
you need to wash your hand before you eat?
No
I'm not talking about what your mother told you
Your hand is dirty, go wash them
before you sit down at the table
I won't talk about that
talking about a ritual washing
Something do with impurity and purity
Is that found anywhere in the Scripture
the answer is no
But then nonetheless this is a custom
You say, tradition of the elders
Upheld by the Pharisees and all the Jews
A very odd phrase, right?
We wash before we eat
But they noticed that Jesus' disciples
were not doing it
They were eating with common hands
Hands that have not been washed
So I'll skip the next verse, to verse 5
The Pharisees and the scribes asked him
Why do your disciples not live
according to the tradition of the elders?
Eat with defiled hands?
Why don't they observe the tradition?
After all, we are all Jews, right?
This remind you that back
Yes, of course
So why didn't they observe the Jews' tradition?
So then there's a complicated set of passages
which I'm skipping here a little bit
Then he called the crowd again to him
and he said to them
Listen to me, all of you, and understand
There is nothing outside a person
that by going in can defile
but the things that come out are what defile
which in context would seem to me
They don't need to wash their hands
because that would suggest that
we are trying to avoid defiling ourselves
by bringing something into the body
I'm not quite sure if
Jesus understands washing hands
But okay, that's a very complicated discussion, right
Which he is suggesting if we washing our hands
that we did not defile ourselves
make ourselves impure
by ingesting, by having your hands
cause these what come into us to be impure
Judge Jesus says that it doesn't work
you don't have to worry about that
Rather, things that come out are what defile
What does that mean?
When he had left the crowd and entered the house
his disciples asked him about parable
He said to them
Then do you also fail to understand?
Do you not see that whatever goes into
a person from outside, food, cannot defile?
Since it enters not the heart but the stomach
and goes out into the sewer
Right, remains of your food
wind up in the toilet
So clearly, that does not defile
make impure
Thus he declared all foods clean
I'll come back to that in one second
And he said, it is what comes out
of a person that defiles
Not the food that's going in
that have to worry about
which we spend by washing of hands
Rather, that's what comes
out of the person that defiles
makes you impure
What does that mean?
What comes out of a person?
Is that referring to poop?
He's referring to, as he explains now in one second
Right? For it is from within
from human heart, evil intentions come
fornication, theft, murder, adultery
avarice, wickedness, deceit
licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly
All these evil things come from within
and they defile a person
So we Christians do not need to wash the hands
to observe the tradition of the elders
because the washing of the hands
is to prevent our defilement by eating food
We Christians don't have to worry about that
The defilement that we Christians
have to worry about
He gets on speaking
as if Jesus is talking about Christians
Of course I know Christian said it at his time
I remember that from my lecture
from two weeks ago
Right, Jesus is just Jews
But we'll be looking at the long-term view
that's where are we going with this
Right, Christians don't have to worry about
defile themselves by eating food, by ingesting food
They have to worry about defile themselves
by speech, by action
by intentions, by thoughts
If that, of course, washing hands is irrelevant
Okay, this is a very very complicated chapter
Mark:7, I don't have time to deal with it now
Tomson discusses some of the problems with it
He seems to be stitching together
all these various pieces
But one of these little pieces is the passage
at the end of verse 19
Thus he declared all foods clean
Yes
So is it probable that Jesus
didn't keep the kosher law himself?
Another great question
I would argue, of course he
kept the kosher laws
If you mean that Jesus and his disciples
went after they have multiplied the loafs
multiplied the wine
they sit down and have, you know, shrimp salad
I would say, probably not
Probably not
Do they sit down and have
you know, ham and egg for breakfast?
Probably not
Because he's a Jew
And there's no passage in Scripture
Sorry, in the New Testament
which clearly, unambiguously says
that Jesus violated, well actually, any law
We'll see Sabbath is a tricky closest one
we'll see that next week
So, I also have a question of that
So when he sitting around for the last supper
he passed his cup and he said drink my blood
Do you think anybody went, gross
Well, he should have done that
If he had been real Jews
What he have said
that we'll discuss when we get there
Right, gross, we Jews don't drink blood
I'll come back to that in one second
That's on the last page of my note
I got to keep on the clock
Right, right
We Jews don't eat blood
What are we talking about?
Presuming that is meant to be metaphorical
or some weird verbal, we'll discuss that
Okay?
A blood, as Tomson discusses
The prohibition of eating blood is something
early Christian did adopt
They would not eat blood
What does not-eat-blood mean?
Now I'm running ahead of myself
But I'll prepare another time, so just as well
What does it mean when a Christian say
do not eat blood?
Are they the same as drink cups of blood?
No, we are talking about slaughtering animal
and draining blood from the animals
which is what Jews do, to this day
Right, in order to drain the blood from the meat
So that was something that early Christians
did also for quite some time
And yet they still have this mysterious ritual
Which we'll discuss in a few weeks
Okay, so back to where we are
Thus he declared all foods clean
which I think in context
surely means
Remember SURELY, what does SURELY mean?
Surely means I'm not at all sure
Okay, back to where I am
So surely this parenthetical remark means
that he declares all foods clean
that you can have shrimp salad
that you can eat ham and eggs
This is how all the earliest Christian readers
of that line in Mark understood
And Tomson argues that originally in context
what he meant was nothing more than
you don't have to worry about the purity laws
when you are eating your food
You don't have to worry about washing your hands
or the worry about those purity-impurity things
In the Book of Leviticus
you don't have to worry about those things
Only the pieties, super-pious types, Pharisees
They worry about those purity rules
But you, regular Jews like you and me
we can eat without washing hands
cos we don't have to worry about
the purity in the food
Just eat it
That's what Tomson argues
So I would say, well, yeah
but then narrative context may be
that's what it means, may be, I'm not sure
I'm not sure whether somebody
is sticking a line like that
That's all I means
SURELY it means you can have shrimp
Not to mention cheeseburgers
But okay, so that's how
ancient Christians read that line
And saw in this story
the locus, classics, the classic passage to show
That Jesus is setting aside the Biblical food laws
from the Book of Leviticus
Read Tomson on that
The other main passage in the New Testament
on the subject is Acts:10
So remember the Book of Acts
gives a story of the apostles
after the resurrection of Jesus
That's how it starts
With their vision of recent Jesus, in Acts:1
which parallels to the last piece of Gospels
Right, and then Acts takes story afterwards
Right, what happens among the apostles
the disciples, what happens then
And beginning with
the middle of the book to the end
Paul emerges as the main character
in the Book of Acts
Okay, Acts:10 is about Peter
Right, it's a remarkable story
I don't have time to read the whole thing
Again, this is discussed by Tomson
So you can read it there, so
That's we have here briefly the excerpts
About noon the next day
Peter went up on the roof to pray
Peter of course was one of the apostles
One of disciples of Jesus
He became hungry, wanted something to eat
While it was being prepared
he fell into a trance
he saw the heaven opened and
something like a large sheet coming down
Perhaps a table cloth, we would say
Coming down, being lowered to the ground
by its four corners
In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures
and reptiles and birds of the air
Then he heard a voice saying
Get up, Peter, kill and eat
But Peter said, Lord
By no means, for I have never
eaten anything that is profane
common, unclean, defile
It's not kosher food
to use the later language
I can't do this, it's not kosher
I can't eat these food, animals like this
The voice said to him again
a second time, and a third time
What God has made clean
you must not call profane
Then the next paragraph, the story proceeds
Peter understands what it means
when he's invited to go to
the house of a Roman centurion
And Peter says, you know
He tells when he is back into the house
I never would come into a house
cos we Jews don't associate with gentiles
See, food laws keeps you away from gentiles
Right, I would never go anywhere
near the food of gentiles
go into the house of gentiles
But now we have this vision from God
I understand what God means
I should not call a profane, defiled, unholy
that which God has made
Same little motif you saw in rabbinic story
Right, God does not make distinctions
Right, all alike are the children of God
So that's the message
from that the story Peter says
That's why I'm going into your house
and Cornelius now gets converted to something
like we might wanna call Christianity
speaking inaccurately
Okay, the main question then discussed by Tomson
of course in the story is
So the vision, up Peter kill and eat
So that vision tells Peter he should go
associate with Cornelius
Because we Christians are gonna associate with
gentiles in a way that old-fashion Jews never did
Right, the distinction between Jew and gentile
as in the case of Paul
has been supplanted, has been replaced
But then when Peter sits down
and eat with Cornelius, here is my question
What is Peter going to eat with Cornelius?
Is he gonna sit there and take out
his little double-wrapped luminous foil
owe-you-approved lunch meal?
Which he'll eat with plastic utensils
and a paper cup?
Right, eating on a separate little towel?
Or is he gonna dig into the shrimp diablo
Right, I never had such things, I don't know
But you know, you understand
Will he dig into the seafood salad?
Right, follow by honey-laced ham?
Later Christians of course understood the latter
As if once you break these barriers
once you get rid of the food laws
as he is metaphorically doing in the story
That means no food laws
no social barriers with gentiles
They go together
They are both being supplanted
That's how later Christians read that story
And at some point, I have to say
That's the truth of the story
from a point of view of Christian history
And the narrative context
I'm not 100% sure if Peter really is digging
into that shrimp or not
He associated with gentiles
He has perhaps some kind of
residual transition time here in the story
Anyway, read the story
It's one of the whole story extend
discussed by Tomson
Okay, if any of you have any quick observations
on either of those two great stories
You have four great stories today
Mark, Acts, and two rabbinic ones
I think they are all terrific texts
Okay, we have like five minutes, so
Let's get to the last page
There are other food prohibitions besides
So Christianity of course, sooner or later
one way or another
does get rid of the food laws
Right, arguing that God does not make
the old distinctions that Judaism upholds
have been replaced
So food laws go
distinctions between Jews and gentiles
these go, out
What's interesting is that
some food prohibitions do endure
in early Christianity
Spotted what I just said?
So while they busy munching away on shrimp
on honey-laced ham
Nonetheless there are food prohibitions
The first and main one is not to eat blood
which I've already mentioned briefly
This is a piece of lecture I didn't get to on Monday
So go back to the lecture notes
from Monday if you want
But not now, the lecture is almost done, right
Do not eat blood
Do not eat blood is the most repeated
prohibition in the Torah
Repeated more often than, don't murder
don't steal, right?
The prohibition do not eat blood
occurs at least half a dozen times
Which the legislator repeats over and over
You Israelites do not eat blood
You need to slaughter the animal
and drain the blood
Right, no details are given about ritual slaughter
in the Biblical text
You have to wait again to the tradition of the elders
Later tradition understand
how Jews slaughter animals
The Scripture is pretty sound on the subject
But the prohibition of eating blood, consuming blood
endures within the history of Judaism
That's the point of Jewish kosher slaughter
Kosher slaughter to this day
the point is to slaughter animal
in such a way so as to
drain as much blood as possible
as quickly as possible
Alright, so the exact opposite
to Jewish kosher slaughter would be
to take a hammer and stunt at the animal
smash animal with the head
Which all the blood remains inside the animal
Kosher slaughter is the opposite
slip the neck so as to drain the blood
Okay, so that goes back to
these two rabbinic antiquity
So it seems that some Christians
again, who follow Scripture
who read the Bible
And you can read in Genesis:9
that God tells Noah, not to eat the blood
Right, they thought this meant including us
Cos where does Jesus ever say to eat blood?
Except those own blood at the ritual of Euphrates
which we'll come back to, right
Where does he ever say to eat blood?
Of course not, he never did anything
to supplant, to replace this prohibition
So for centuries, the prohibition of blood
which fundamentally meant
Christians are following Jewish ritual slaughter
They'll slaughter animals to drain the blood
So it's not to violate the prohibition
the Scriptural prohibition of eating blood
This endures for centuries in early Christianity
Cos Christian said
This is not just found in Leviticus
It's also found in the Book of Genesis
God speaking to Noah
And Noah of course represents humanity
Not just Jews
The other prohibition that Christian
comes up with and develops is
food, meat sacrificed to idols
While it's true the food laws has been replaced
But we Christians, just like we Jews, right
need to be aware of idolatry
Right, the worship of false god
the worship of images
These are prohibited, us Christians know
thus they are prohibited to Jews
To just as Judaism
we'll work out in rabbinic literature
a whole series of prohibitions
to make sure that we Jews do nothing
to contribute to, or derive benefit from idolatry
Similarly, early Christians worked out
a series of prohibitions to make sure
that we Christians do not
A, abet benefit from, derive pleasure
from idolatry, idols
Consequently if there is meat sacrificed to idols
And actually in antiquity
That's when you get to getting most of
your meat at festival times
When you have festivals
animals are slaughtered and roasted
and meat is sold, meat is contributed
That's the meat that we Christians
need to avoid eating
because it has been sacrificed to idols
This is a prohibition that
has a long history in Christianity
The main text for us is 1 Corinthians:8
which Paul will discuss this point back and forth
in which Paul says
In theory, since we Christians know
idols don't exist
It's just frequents the imagination
There's only one God
So in theory of course
you shouldn't be offering them anything
Cos even food sacrifice to idols
is not really prohibited
Cos idols don't exist
Nonetheless, some strong-minded
Christian brothers will be upset
if they saw us eating this food
So we shouldn't eat it
Other Christians were much more pointed
No, don't eat it, prohibited
Don't eat meat sacrificed to idols
Anyway, conclusion
Even when Christianity
which replaces, gets rid of
the Jewish food taboos, right
Some food taboos endure
And will endure for centuries
Okay everybody, have a great weekend
Hope to see you [Rhine & trismile Production]