FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276  
277   278   279   280   281   282   283   >>  
great herd of swine, 2,000 in number, mentioned in the narrative of the possessed, was feeding in the territory of Gadara, which belonged to the Decapolis; and the prodigal son became a swineherd with the native of a far country into which he had wandered; in neither of these cases is there reason for thinking that the possessors of these herds were Jews.[109] Having failed in my search, so far, I took up the next book of reference at hand, Kitto's "Cyclopaedia" (vol. iii. 1876). There, under "Swine," the writer, Colonel Hamilton Smith, seemed at first to give me what I wanted, as he says that swine "appear to have been repeatedly introduced and reared by the Hebrew people,[110] notwithstanding the strong prohibition in the Law of Moses (Is. lxv. 4)." But, in the first place, Isaiah's writings form no part of the "Law of Moses"; and, in the second place, the people denounced by the prophet in this passage are neither the possessors of pigs, nor swineherds, but these "which eat swine's flesh and broth of abominable things is in their vessels." And when, in despair, I turned to the provisions of the Law itself, my difficulty was not cleared up. Leviticus xi. 8 (Revised Version) says, in reference to the pig and other unclean animals: "Of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch." In the revised version of Deuteronomy, xiv. 8, the words of the prohibition are identical, and a skilful refiner might possibly satisfy himself, even if he satisfied nobody else, that "carcase" means the body of a live animal as well as a dead one; and that, since swineherds could hardly avoid contact with their charges, their calling was implicitly forbidden.[111] Unfortunately, the authorised version expressly says "dead carcase"; and thus the most rabbinically minded of reconcilers might find his casuistry foiled by that great source of surprises, the "original Hebrew." That such check is at any rate possible, is clear from the fact that the legal uncleanness of some animals, as food, did not interfere with their being lawfully possessed, cared for, and sold by Jews. The provisions for the ransoming of unclean beasts (Lev. xxvii. 27) and for the redemption of their sucklings (Numbers xviii. 15) sufficiently prove this. As the late Dr. Kalisch has observed in his "Commentary" on Leviticus, part ii. p. 129, note:-- Though asses and horses, camels and dogs, were kept by the
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   272   273   274   275   276  
277   278   279   280   281   282   283   >>  



Top keywords:

people

 
version
 

swineherds

 

carcase

 

reference

 

prohibition

 

possessors

 

Leviticus

 
Hebrew
 
unclean

possessed

 

provisions

 
animals
 

implicitly

 

calling

 
charges
 

authorised

 

expressly

 

Unfortunately

 
forbidden

rabbinically

 

satisfied

 
satisfy
 

possibly

 

identical

 

skilful

 

refiner

 

minded

 
animal
 
contact

sufficiently

 

Kalisch

 

redemption

 

sucklings

 

Numbers

 

observed

 

horses

 

camels

 

Though

 

Commentary


beasts

 

original

 

casuistry

 
foiled
 

source

 

surprises

 
lawfully
 
ransoming
 

interfere

 

uncleanness