The Pentateuchal Dietary Proscription against Finless and Scaleless Aquatic Species in Light of Ancient Fish Remains

Abstract

The origins and early history of the pentateuchal prohibition against eating finless and scaleless aquatic species (Lev 11:9–12; Deut 14:9–10) has yet to merit a detailed investigation. The present study is an initiatory attempt to attend to this lacuna by analysing 56 zooarchaeological assemblages of fish remains from 30 sites throughout the southern Levant from the Late Bronze Age through to the end of the Byzantine period (ca. 1550 BCE to 640 CE). A central conclusion of the study is that consumption of scaleless fish— especially catfish—was not uncommon at Judean sites throughout the Iron Age and Persian periods. Unlike the pentateuchal prohibitions against eating pork, the ban against finless and scaleless aquatic species apparently deviated from longstanding Judean dietary habits. The pentateuchal writers appear to have legislated this dietary restriction despite the lack of an old and widespread dietary tradition at its root. This conclusion should encourage us to rethink commonly held assumptions that other pentateuchal dietary proscriptions emerged out of earlier dietary ‘taboos’.

Keywords:

• Fish
• Pentateuch
• Dietary laws
• Bible
• Judaism
• Taboo

Notes

1 Jacob Milgrom (1991: 659–661) pointed out that the biblical corpus in general lacks names for fish (aside from the ‘םינינת’: Gen 1:21; Isa 51:9; Ps 74:13). This curious fact he ascribes to ancient Israelites having little access to natural bodies of water and to a dearth of fish in the Eastern Mediterranean prior to the construction of the Suez Canal—both dubious claims according to the current state of archaeozoological knowledge (cf. Firmage 1990: 189–190, 200–202). For a somewhat odd suggestion that the pentateuchal authors felt obliged to set forth criteria for proscribed fish, but in ignorance of marine zoology, excluded commonly eaten species such as catfish, see Houston 1993: 234–235.

2 Milgrom (1991: 656 –659) argued that the root ץ-ק-ש in Lev 11 bears a precise, technical meaning: it refers to animals whose ingestion is forbidden but whose contact does not pollute with ritual impurity. As for the use of the root א-מ-ט in Deuteronomy14:10, Milgrom (ibid.: 700–701) argued that in Deuteronomy the term lacks a restricted ritual dimension and should be read as a moral pronouncement (cf. Houston 1993: 40–43). Be that as it may, neither Leviticus 11 nor Deuteronomy 14 forbid touching the carcass of finless or scaleless species (cf. Lev 11:8; Deut 14:8).

3 For more recent considerations, see Meshel 2008; Nihan 2011: 412–414.

4 It bears noting that the relevant passages from Leviticus 11 are preserved in a fragmentary state among the Judean Desert biblical texts in 1QpaleoLev (1Q3) 1 and in MasLev^b (Mas1b) iv12–17; see: Barthélemy 1955: 52; Talmon 1999: 45.

5 See also 4 Maccabees 1:34, where unspecified ‘water creatures (ἐνύδρων)’ are said to be prohibited. No references to prohibited aquatic species have survived from Qumran. A curious passage in the Damascus Document (CD 12:13b–14a) states that “they should not eat fish unless they were torn alive and their blood shed” (ם֯ מ֯ ד֗ ך]פ[שנו םייח וערקנ םא יכ ולכאי לא םיגדהו). The idea seems to be that fish blood is subsumed under the ban on ‘all blood’ (Lev 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:10–14; as opposed to m. Ker. 5:1 and t. Ker. 2:18 where fish blood is permitted). For the idea that fish might require the rabbinic ritual slaughter, see Genesis Rabbah 7:2.

6 Pliny seems to have been only vaguely familiar with the Judean practice, which he appears to have thought involved abstaining from eating fish with scales!

7 The literature on the possible rationales behind the pentateuchal dietary laws is vast; in the words of Milgrom (1991: 718): “There are as many theories as theorists”. For an in-depth exploration of some of the main positions on the matter, including a detailed discussion on Mary Douglas’s ideas about impurity and anomaly, see ibid.: 718–736.

8 See Milgrom 1991: 727, where a similar question is posed for the entirety of the dietary prohibitions.

9 Note that in a few cases, certain data on published assemblages provided here are not specified in the published reports.

10 While sometimes skeletal remains are found in a sealed context that can be attributed to a specified point in time (e.g., a pit containing the remains of a ceremonial feast: see below the assemblage from Iron II at Ramat Raḥel), such circumstances are rather uncommon. Even in such best-case scenarios, taphonomic factors challenge our capacity to determine actual quantities consumed during any given point in time.

11 As catfish have a large, heavy head bearing very little flesh, it was often cut off and left in the vicinity of the fishing grounds. Since usually only the meat-bearing carcass of the catfish was brought to market, bones from the head region tend to be rarer than vertebrae.

12 The lone possible exception is the site el-Aḥwat; while Adam Zertal (2012) associated this site with the Shardana, one of the ‘Sea Peoples’ mentioned in Egyptian and Ugaritic texts, Israel Finkelstein (2002: 196) argued that the site’s material culture “reflects both highland traditions and the influence of the Iron I Canaanite material culture of the lowlands”.

13 The cultural affiliation of Tel Reḥov with the Northern Kingdom is less than clear: Mazar 2008: 2013–2018. It may be of interest to note that increasing frequencies of pig bones appear at Tel Reḥov during the Iron IIA; see Sapir-Hen et al. 2013: 6, 10.

14 With consideration to the dearth of data from this period, we note here the contents of two Hellenistic assemblages, both from Jerusalem’s Giv>ati Parking Lot, which are not included in our analysis because their total NISP is less than 20 (see the ‘Method’ section above). One assemblage, dated to the Early Hellenistic period (‘Phase VII’), contains three catfish bones out of a total NISP of 16 (Spiciarich 2020: Table 5.30). The second assemblage, dated to the Late Hellenistic period (“Phase VI”), contains one catfish bone out of a total NISP of nine (ibid.).

15 For the idea that a Judean population resided in Areas B/D at Gamla—perhaps together with non- Judean residents—as early as the late 2nd century BCE, see: Berlin 2006: 133–135; Syon 2014: 137–139. Both Berlin and Syon conceded that there may well have been non-Judeans living in Gamla up until the city’s capture by Jannaeus, and Berlin even suggested that during this period the city’s Judeans were characterised by “acceptance of at least some Greek habits, and thus ] … [ were more cosmopolitan and less observant than Judean Jews” (ibid: 135).

16 In recent years, Avraham Faust has been among the most vocal supporters of the notion that a ‘taboo’ against pork was observed as early as the Iron I, and probably even earlier, writing of this period: “the Israelites (or proto-Israelites) completely avoided pork at this time, most likely building on an existing taboo to distinguish themselves from the Philistines” (Faust 2018: 293). Faust, like others before him, conflated lack of pork remains with deliberate ‘avoidance’, and consequentially posited that a ‘taboo’ is manifest in the archaeological record. For a detailed critique of several of Faust’s other arguments in this study, see Finkelstein, Gadot and Sapir- Hen 2018.

17 Nehemiah 13:16 narrates: “And the Tyrians ]who[ abode therein (“הב ובשי םירצהו”) were bringing fish (“גאד”) and all kinds of merchandise and selling ]them[ on the Sabbath to the people of Judah, and in Jerusalem”. As it is essentially unknown when this story was composed or by whom, its relevance for understanding historical realities in Persian period Jerusalem is rather limited. For a Hellenistic dating of this stratum of Nehemiah, see Wright 2004: 221–242. For an extended treatment regarding how the evidence presented in the current study relates to our understanding of the earliest emergence of Judaism, see the chapter on the Judean dietary laws in Adler forthcoming.

18 Note that Flavius Josephus reported that Judeans “accused by the people of Jerusalem of eating profane food (κοινοφαγίας)” would flee and seek refuge among the Samaritans (Ant. 11:346); this suggests that non-compliance with the pentateuchal food laws was not unheard of at this time, although such behaviour could be expected to elicit severe social reprimand.

19 For a decline in ritual purity observance at this time, see Adler 2017.