The arguments that I am talking about--that I have heard of--are as follows:
(1) The kosher dietary strictures against the eating of pork are based on the sound medical fact that the parasitic disease of trichinosis can be transmitted through the consumption of pork products.
(2) The kosher dietary strictures against the eating of shellfish are based on the sound medical fact that these, too, can transmit disease.
(3) The kosher restriction against mixing meat and milk was a prescient practice that reduced or avoided the risk of typhoid.
(4) The circumcision of infant males was delayed until the eighth day after birth because it takes this long for blood clotting factors to develop.
Even allowing that these may be instances of kosher practices having some practical utility, this would hardly argue for their being of divine origin. The operation of natural selection on the simple process of trial and error would be sufficient to result in the prevalence of useful, and especially lifesaving traditions. Nor does anything in the Bible argue to the contrary. God never tells his "chosen people," for example, that the reason they're to avoid pork or not mix milk and meat products is because of "creeping things" too small to see that can make them sick. Neither is there so much as a single account of someone disobeying "God's law" by circumcising an infant before the seventh day and being "punished" by having their boy bleed to death.
In addition, if it is going to be claimed that these kosher/Jewish biblical traditions were established because of then-unknown scientific facts, then all the other idiosyncratic Jewish strictures need to be shown to have a similar basis. Thus, it needs to be explained why it's OK to eat ducks and geese but not swans (Deut. 14:16). An account needs to be given for why the faithful were not permitted to eat, not just pigs, but also camels, hares, and hyraxes (Deut. 14:7). Old Testament, "God's-law" defenders should tell us the scientific basis for why their Yahweh insists that we not sow a field with "mingled seed" or wear a garment "mingled of linen and woolen (Lev. 19:19). They should justify the prohibition on eating blood (Lev. 19:26 and elsewhere) and on "round[ing] the corners of your heads" or "mar[ring] the corners of thy beard" (Lev. 19:27). I would especially like to have the medical scientific facts that support all the biblical teachings about diagnosing and treating leprosy, including the use of bird blood as described at Leviticus 14:50-51.
Now with regard to the particular claims listed above concerning the Bible's supposed science-based recommendations:
* Although pork can transmit trichinosis, there are lots of other parasitic nematodes that are transmitted by other means, including the eating of beef. Poultry and just about everything else can transmit diseases as well. Yet all of these, including trichinosis, can be avoided by the simple expedient of cooking such foods thoroughly. So if God's intention was to issue kosher rules to reduce the risk of food-borne illness, all he needed to have done was to insist that all meats be well cooked. Handwashing by those handling the food would also have been a plus, but I haven't been able to find any verses that commanded this simple step.
* Again, just about any food item can transmit disease. And, again, thorough cooking largely if not completely eliminates the danger. There is no disproportionate risk from shellfish.
* Neither is there anything unique about mixtures of meat and milk. In fact, milk is a relatively poor culture medium compared to, say, fruit juices, as far as disease-causing bacteria are concerned. Besides, the Bible's prohibition [at Exodus 23:19 and elsewhere] is that "(t)hou shalt not seethe [emphasis added] a kid in his mother's milk." Seething, which is to say boiling milk and meat together, destroys bacteria that can cause food-borne illnesses.
* Nor is there anything significant about the eighth day after birth as far as the safety of circumcision is concerned. The eighth day was simply numerological superstition. Infants have been routinely circumcised much earlier than that.[1] And if an infant is going to bleed to death from a circumcision, it's much more likely to be as a result of an inherited coagulation defect. The real question is: why circumcise at all? And the answer is that it was a symbolic form of human sacrifice. In modern times, although it is arguable as to whether there may be benefits from circumcision, the evidence is by no means overwhelming and would almost certainly be outweighed by the risk of infection in a prescientific era in which antibiotics were unknown.[2]
Clearly, "God's law" is not grounded in any kind of knowledge or understanding that exceeded the rudimentary status of what people thought at the time that the Bible was written. But fundamentalist Jews and Christians have yet to come to grips with this fact. Fundamentalist Christians have an even tougher task unless they are going to disagree completely with their fundamentalist Jewish colleagues and take the position that all the kosher laws are nothing but empty ritual. For if it is to be believed that any of "God's law" with regard to dietary strictures and the like has some basis in science, then one must conclude that what was a good idea then is still a good idea. Moreover, it would also have to be concluded that, unless he intended for Christians to be miraculously impervious to all the food-borne diseases that kosher practices supposedly helped to prevent, Paul was mistaken when he dismissed such traditions as childish.
[1] It is true that Vitamin K injections are now routinely given to newborns in order to hasten the production of blood-clotting factors, but even before this measure became common, infants were circumcised during the first 48 hours or so of life without any ill effects.
[2] Why didn't Yahweh teach the ancient Jews about bacteria and how to cultivate the Pennicillium fungus?
(Tim Gorski, M. D., P. O. Box 202477, Arlington, TX 76006;
e-mail, gorski@atheist.com)
