@Jonathan_Burke,
As I have mentioned on another thread, you and I are one of the few that happily place large portions of the Biblical text in the POST-EXILIC period. And so I always hope we can find MORE areas of agreement over time…
Below is a portion from the Wiki article on the book of Daniel:
"Traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself, modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BC).[3: Collins, John J. (2002). “Current Issues in the Study of Daniel”. In Collins, John J.; Flint, Peter W.; VanEpps, Cameron. The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception. BRILL, page 2.]
I am not convinced that the Babylonians had much to contribute to the concept of vegetarianism. However, during the same period, we read about the Maccabees interest in avoiding the defilement of animal flesh:
"2 Maccabees 5:27 (circa 167 BCE)
“Judas, called Maccabaeus, however, with about nine others, withdrew into the wilderness and lived like wild animals in the hills with his companions, eating nothing but wild plants to avoid contracting defilement.”
2 Maccabees 5:27 (circa 167 BCE)
“Judas, called Maccabaeus, however, with about nine others, withdrew into the wilderness annd lived llike wild animals in the hills with his companions, eating nothing but wild plants to avoid contracting defilement.”
Solving the Romans Debate
By A. Andrew Das
P. 107
"The avoidance of meat on the part of Roman church members may reflect the same avoidance of meat on the art of Roman church members may reflect the same neo-Pythagorean influence that perhaps impacted the Colossian congregation. [FN 215 Col 2:15-23; Henrich Schlier Der Romerbrief (HTKNT 6; Freiburg: Herder, 19770, 403-406; Ulrich Wilckens, Der Brief an die Romer, 3.111-112. ]
The problem with a neo-Pythagorean rationale for the avoidance of meat and wine at Rome is that the weak are observing these practices “for the Lord” (Romans 14:6) and could lose their faith if forced to drop their customs (Romans 14:20).
“It is hard to image Pythagorean vegetarianism being so closely wedded to Christian faith as to be an issue on which believers could feel their loyalty to God depended.” [FN 216 "As John M.G. Barclary has observed, (“Do we Undermine the Law?” 292). This objection would equally apply to Max Rauer’s thesis in Die “Schwachen” in Korinth und Rom nach den Paulusbriefen (BibS[F] 21, 2/3; Freiburg: Herder, 1923) that the “weak” are adherents of GNOSTIC, HELLENISTIC mystery religions. This was taken up by Robert J. Karris, “Romans 14:1 - - 15:13 and the Occasion of Romans”, CBQ 25 (1973): 68 (repr. The Romans Debate, 65-84, [rev. and enl. ed.; ed. Karl
P. Donfried; Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991]), even though he disagreed with Raur’s overall conclusions. For a detailed criticque of Raur, see Nelio Schneider, Die ‘Schwachen’ in der christlichen Gemeinde Roms (Theologie 5; Munster: Lit, 1996). ]
Page 108
“Romans 15:7-13 provides additonal evidence that the weak Paul describes in the immediately preceding verses are observing Jewish customs. He urges Jews and gentiles in Christ maintains the thread that has dominated the letter from its beginning in 1:16. The “weak” appear, then, to be observing the Jewish customs from
the very Law discussed at length throughout the letter.”
"Pythagorean asceticism was a matter of personal choice. Why, then, would the weak [to use Paul’s term] consider their lifestyle a universal mandate for all and judge the “strong” in 14:2? . . . .
[END OF QUOTES SO FAR]
It would seem that vegetarianism we find in the Bible comes out of a POST-BABYLONIAN matrix…
