“UNCLEAN” ANIMALS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23515, 1 June 1938, Page 12

“UNCLEAN” ANIMALS

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —I have no wish to engage in the discussion upon early Christian Communism, but two correspondents have side-tracked upon another subject altogether, viz., clean and unclean animals, as mentioned in the Bible. Neither of them seems to understand the meaning of “ clean ” and “ unclean,” and as it is also very generally misunderstood, I would enlighten them upon the matter. The meaning of “ unclean ” is not found in any hygienic sense as your correspondents seem to think, but is found in a spiritual, or ritualistic, or religious .sense. ‘‘Unclean •” is but another name for sacred or holy, something that is tabooed for use, wholly or in part, or under strict ritualistic law. because of some imagined supernaturally dangerous influence inherent in it, which is apt to work ill towards whoever comes into contact with it. Women at childbirth were unclean, the dead were unclean —in exactly the same sense as were swine. A woman was unclean for a longer period after the birth of a female than of a male. A woman was unclean at this time because of the supernatural danger supposed to be residing in her on account of the nature of her sex. Thus, there was more danger in her giving birth to one of her own sex than to a male. Robertson Smith has pointed out: “ The Hebrew word ‘ tame ’ (‘ unclean ’) is not the ordinary word for things physically foul; it is a ritual term, and corresponds exactly to the idea of ‘ taboo.’ The ideas ‘ unclean ’ and ‘ holy ’ seem to us to stand in polar opposition to one another, but it was not so with the Semites. Among the later Jews the Holy Books ‘ defiled the hands’ of the reader as contact with an impure thing did; among Lucian’s Syrians the dove was so holy that he who touched it was unclean for a day; and the ‘ taboo ’ attaching to

the swine was explained by some, and beyond question correctly explained, in the same way.” Sir J. G. Frazer says: “The Greeks could not decide whether the Jews worshipped swine or abominated them. On the one hand, they might not eat swine: but on the other hand they might not kill them. And if the former rule speaks for uncleanness. the latter speaks still more strongly for sanctity of the animal. . . Down to the time of Isaiah (66-17), some of the Jews used'to meet secretly in gardens to eat the flesh of swine and mice as a religious rite. Doubtless, this was a very ancient ceremony, dating from a time when both pig and the mouse were venerated as divine, and when their flesh was partaken of sacramentally on rare and solemn occasions as the body and blood of gods. And, in general, it may perhaps be said that the so-called unclean animals were originally sacred; the reason for not eating them was that they were divine.” Now, the pig was a sacred animal in Egypt and to the Syrians, and was especially so in the religion of Aphrodite or Astarte. It was also associated with the worships of Attis and Adonis. The Jews were in contact with these and thus knew of the sacredness of holiness of swine, and by them these would be regarded as ‘‘unclean ” —possessing supernatural or spiritual powers or danger that would be contagious. The meaning of “ unclean ” thus in no way had reference to any ideas of hygiene as now pertains among us. It is now clear why an ox was not to be yoked to an ass. The ox was used for food and could be. by contact with the unclean ass, rendered dangerous, in a supernatural sense, of course, for eating. There is evidence that among some of the Semitic peoples the ass also was held to be sacred, and there was an asssacrifice among the Egyptians. The camel was also a sacred animal, and thus “unclean,” among some of the Semites; as also was the coney, which was believed to have been originally human, and so far from being unclean in our modern sense it was spoken of as being the “brother of man.” Now, I think I have given enough to' show the true meaning of “ unclean ” as used by the Jews, and. in fact, as used by all primitive peoples even today. Your correspondents, in their endeavours to interpret the Bible, cannot hope to get anywhere without an anthropological understanding of many such things as I have dealt with here. —I am, etc. Profanum Vulgus. Dunedin, May 30.