Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T16:20:39.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dietary Laws among Pythagoreans, Jews, and Christians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Robert M. Grant
Robert M. Grant
Affiliation:
University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Dietary laws, as well as problems in regard to their observance, are prevalent in religious groups even today and were fairly common in antiquity. Outsiders and insiders as well often wondered what the point of the laws was, and in three significant communities—Pythagoreans, Jews, and Christians—the regulations were interpreted, or interpreted away, with the help of philosophical or even historical analysis.

Type
Articles
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 73 , Issue 1-2 , April 1980 , pp. 299 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The basic studies are those of Boehm, F., De symbolis pythagoreis (Diss., Berlin, 1905)Google Scholar; Delatte, A., Etudes sur la littérature pythagoriciene (Paris, 1915) 285–307Google Scholar; Nilsson, M. P., Geschichte der griechischen Religion (2d ed.; Munich, 1955) 1. 703–8Google Scholar; Marcovich, M., “Pythagorica,” Philologus 108 (1964) 29–44 (esp. 43–44).Google Scholar

2 Frg. Gr. Hist. 273 F. 94 (Clement Str. 1.70.1); cf. Diog. Laert. 8.24.36.

3 Frag. 6 Walzer (Diog. Laert. 1.8; Pliny N.H. 30.3).

4 Aristotle (2d ed.; Oxford, 1948) 455–56Google Scholar.

5 A. Gellius 4.11.12–13; cf. also Diog. Laert. 8.34.

6 Diog. Laert. 8.19.

7 Ibid., 8.34–35.

8 Delatte, Etudes, 288.

9 Marcovich, “Pythagorica,” 43–44.

10 A. Gellius 4.11.4–6; similar but expanded, Diog. Laert. 8.20.

11 Diog. Laert. 8.34 and 19. In his Quaest. conviv. Plutarch speaks of abstinence from the white cock, the red mullet, and the sea-nettle (670D), and also refers to abstinence “especially from fish” (728D).

12 Rhet. graec. III, p. 194, 3–5 Spengel.

13 P. 12E—F.

14 Athenaeus 452D.

15 Diog. Laert. 8.18.

16 Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 42–45.

17 Iamblichus Vit. Pyth. 83–86; 152–56; Protr. 21.

18 Philo, Quod omn. prob. 2.

19 Str. 5.45.2–3; 7.33.7.

20 Str. 5.30.5. He discusses beans apart from the symbol; cf. 3.24.2.

21 Str. 7.33.7; Plutarch Tranq. 472B; Esu carn. 995E; cf. Theopompus in Athenaeus 4.157D; Pliny N.H. 14.58; also Corssen, P., “Die Schrift des Arztes Androkydes ΠΕΡΙ ΠϒΘΑΓΟΡΙΚΩΝ ΣϒΜΒΛΩΝ,” Rhein. Mus. 67 (1912) 240–63.Google Scholar

22 Hippolytus Ref. 6.27.5.

23 Plutarch Quaest. conviv. 670D—E.

24 Frg. Gr. Hist. 87 F 70 (Strabo 16.2.37.761); cf. Betz, H. D., Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, 1979) 167.Google Scholar

25 Diog. Laert, 8.13; Porphyry Abst. 1.26; lamblichus Vit. Pyth. 25; cf. Delatte, Etudes, 310.

26 Ep. Arist. 146.165–66 (cf. Eusebius. P.E. 8.9.16.31–32).

27 Agric. 131.

28 Spec. 4.100–105 (on the goodness of fish and pork, Plutarch Fort. 98E).

29 Spec. 4.106–18

30 Ant. 3.259–60.

31 4 Macc 2:33–34; 1:1.

32 C. Ap. 2.282.

33 Cf. esp. Conzelmann, H., Die Apostelgeschichte (Tübingen, 1963) 84–85;Google ScholarHaenchen, E., The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia, 1971) 468–72;Google ScholarMolland, E., “La circoncision, le baptême et l'autorité du décret apostolique dans les milieux judéochrétien des Pseudo-Clémentines,” StTh 9 (1955) 1–39Google Scholar; Simon, M., “De l'observance rituelle de l'ascèse: recherches sur le Décret Apostolique,” RHR 193 (1978) 27–104.Google Scholar

34 Spec. 4.122–23.

35 Didache 6.2 (interpolated, according to Audet, J.-P., La Didachè: Instruction des Apôtres [Paris, 1958] 350–57).Google Scholar

36 Didasc. 23, pp. 202–3 Connally = 6.10, 3–4 Funk = Const. Apost. 6.10.2–3.

37 Const. Apost. 7.20: every kind of meat, but not blood, after Deut 15:23; also “the fat of the land,” Gen 45:18.

38 Eusebius H.E. 5.1.26.

39 Irenaeus Adv. haer. 3.12.14.

40 Tertullian Pudic. 12.4–5.

41 Apol. 9.13–14; cf. Barrett, C. K., “Things Sacrificed to Idols,” NTS 11 (1964/1965) 138–53.Google Scholar

42 Origen C. Cels. 8.28–30. On demons' food cf. Chadwick, H., Origen Contra Celsum (Cambridge, 1953) 146, n. 1.Google Scholar

43 Cf. Chadwick, H., The Sentences of Sextus (Cambridge, 1959) 24, no. 109; also p. 108, with reference to Clement Str. 7.32.8.Google Scholar

44 Virt. 146; Spec. 1.266.

45 1 Cor 9:9–10.

46 Barn. chap. 2; 4.6–8; 14.1–4.

47 Kraft, , Barnabas and the Didache (New York, 1965) 109–12.Google Scholar

48 Str. 2.67.1–3.

49 Paed. 2.84–88, with passages from Aristotle cited by Stählin.

50 Paed. 2.7.4

51 References from LSJ s. v. tragelaphos (except for Philo).

52 Paed. 2.120.1; 3.26.2; Origen C. Cels. 4.24. The basic passage is Origen Princ. 4.3.2.

53 Aelian Nat. anim. 2.46; 9.10.

54 Pliny N.H. 10.8.

55 Irenaeus Adv. haer. 4.14.1; Origen Matt. ser. 47.

56 Didache 9.5; Naassenes in Hippolytus Ref. 5.8.34 (interpreting as if “dogs” and “swine” reflected the usage of Aristophanes).

57 Basilidians in Epiphanius 24.5.2; Elchasai in Hippolytus Ref. 9.7.1; Clement Str. 1.55.3; 2.7.4; Tertullian Praescr. 26.1; 41.2; Bapt. 18.1; Ad. ux. 5.5.2 (porcus = non-Christian husband); Origen C. Cels. 5.29.

58 Methodius De creatis 1, P. 493–94 Bonwetsch.

59 The swine recur in Mark 5:11–13, whatever that may mean.

60 Diog. Laert. 8.35.

61 Origen Matt. comm. 9.17, p. 64, 18 Klostermann. Metempsychosis and dogs are connected in Pythagorean tradition according to Diog. Laert. 8.36.

62 Diog. Laert. 8.35.

63 Matt 11:29–30; cf. Iamblichus Vit. Pyth. 84. Since Plutarch (290E and 727C) and Hippolytus (Ref. 6.27.4) have “Don't step over a broom” instead of “Don't step over a balance” (e.g., the Suda in Diels-Kranz, Vorsokratiker 58 C 6), the parallel cannot be more than verbal.

64 Matt 7:13–14; cf., e.g., Clement Str. 2.79.2; 5.30.1.

65 Luke 9:59–62; 17:31; Diog. Laert. 8.17.

66 Luke 10:4; cf. Plutarch 96A.

67 On Pythagorean phrases in Acts cf. Conzelmann, Apostelgeschichte, 31; on “one” cf. Clement Str. 4.151.3.

68 Gos. Thom. 11, 22, 106.

69 Str. 1.72.4; 2.100.3.

70 C Cels. 5.55; 7.20.

71 de Lange, N. R. M., Origen and the Jews (Cambridge, 1976) 16.Google Scholar

72 Str. 7.32.5 (Sent. 46 ascribed to Pythagoras; elsewhere anonymous citations); not a Pythagorean according to Origen C. Cels. 8.30.

73 Clement Paed. 1.94.1; Hippolytus Ref. 6.23.4. Collections of symbols in Clement Str. 5.27–31; Hippolytus Ref. 6.26–27.