Why is the Giraffe Kosher? 1

Exoticism in Dietary Laws of the 2

Second Temple Period 3

4

James K. Aitken 5 6 In popular Jewish tradition it is well known that the giraffe is theoretically 7

kosher, but never eaten in practice, owing to its long neck arousing 8

uncertainty as to the correct place for cutting during sheḥita, “ritual 9

slaughter”. This uncertainty has been discounted by rabbis, but it is still 10

acknowledged that the giraffe is a problematic kosher case. In 2002, a group 11

of rabbis and researchers in Tel Aviv undertook a dissection of one to 12

determine how far its anatomical features are in concord with legal 13

stipulations.1 They were able to determine that the features of the giraffe did 14

coincide with the laws for permissible animals. Nevertheless, the uncer-15

tainty over the status of the giraffe is made more curious by the realization 16

that the first certain identification of the animal in the list of clean ruminates 17

is in the Septuagint.2 Why did the translators choose this animal as an 18

equivalent of the Hebrew word and what does it tell us about the 19

understanding of kashrut in the period? 20

In the Hebrew Bible among the list of animals permitted for eating are 21

included the following (Deut 14:5): 22 23 rm,z"w" Aat.W !voydIw> AQa;w> rWmx.y:w> ybic.W lY"a; 24

NRSV: the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the 25 antelope and the mountain sheep. 26 27

The equivalent passage in Leviticus 11 on the dietary laws does not include 28

such a list of animals. In Deuteronomy it is uncertain how far the Septuagint 29

translator in the third century B.C.E. would have recognized the Hebrew 30

names of the animals, but he did provide a set of equivalents that are 31

intelligible in Greek: 32 33

e;lafon kai. dorka,da kai. bou,balon kai. trage,lafon kai. pu,gargon 34 o;ruga kai. kamhlopa,rdalin 35 NETS: deer and gazelle and roebuck and wild goat and white-rumped 36

antelope and antelope and giraffe.3 37 38

1 Zivotofsky /Zivotofsky / Amar, Giraffe. See note 1 there for a full bibliography

of recent discussions of the halakhic status of the giraffe. 2 Noted rightly by Zivotofsky /Zivotofsky / Amar, Giraffe, 204. 3 Translation of Pietersma / Wright, Translation.

The identification of animals in the Bible and in the Septuagint translation is 39

a problematic exercise, as names could refer to more than one species or 40

change over time. What one author understood by a term could be inter-41

preted differently by another. Nonetheless, we can place names within a 42

tradition of antiquity that allows us appreciate how they were perceived at 43

any one time. In this case the last item in the list, the kamhlopa,rdalij, is the 44

Greek for giraffe (understood as a spotted or panther-like camel) and it 45

translates the Hebrew hapax legomenon rm,z<. It has been suggested that the 46

root of rm,z< is the verb rm'z" “to prune” (Lev 25:3) referring to the ability of 47

the giraffe to prune the tops of trees.4 This seems to be an attempt, however, 48

at justifying the translation “giraffe.” The Hebrew might designate an 49

animal that prunes, but that can be almost any animal, and an alternative 50

possibility for its etymology is the root “to spring / jump”, cognate with 51

Arabic zamara.5 Hence, it could be a type of gazelle, and indeed the 52

Targums read it as ac'yde, said to be an animal of the deer or gazelle variety, 53

a rendering probably also in the Peshitta if we assume that the nouns have 54

been reversed there.6 Elsewhere the targumic noun is the equivalent of a 55

wild goat (hel'Y"a;, Prov 5:19). The identification of the animal as a giraffe in 56

Jewish tradition may be traced back to Saadiah Gaon in the tenth century, 57

who translated the rm,z< as giraffe (using the Arabic zarāfa, cognate to the 58

term in English).7 He was followed in this by others (e.g., Rabbis Yona ibn 59

Janaḥ and David Qimḥi in their lexicons) and this therefore established it in 60

the tradition. It is uncertain whether a tradition extended from the first 61

Greek translation to Saadiah, but the agreement among the sources would 62

suggest that some common interpretation existed, or was perhaps at least 63

transmitted, among Greek-speaking Jews. It need not be a distinctive Egyp-64

tian tradition known to the Greek translators and Saadiah. 65

To appreciate why it is the giraffe that is chosen here we need to see the 66

lists of kosher and non-kosher animals in a wider perspective. As an odd 67

choice of animal to be kosher, it also raises questions about the construction 68

of the animal lists in the Greek of Deuteronomy, a topic passed over in 69

commentaries.8 From this we may consider the application of the kashrut 70

4 Noted in Zivotofsky /Zivotofsky / Amar, Giraffe, 204. 5 Koehler / Baumgartner, Lexicon, 274. 6 Jastrow, Dictionary, 304. 7 Zivotofsky /Zivotofsky / Amar, Giraffe, 204 (reading the Arabic differently).

They cite Kafiḥ, Commentaries, 175 note 8. 8 One discussion of the problem has recently been published: Hobson, Kosher. He

raises a number of questions regarding the problem but can find no satisfactory

laws in antiquity, which has consequences for the role of food and identity 71

in the Graeco-Roman world. 72

73

1. The Septuagint 74 75

The translators were faced with long lists of animals in Leviticus 11:3-8 and 76

Deuteronomy 14:3-21 and it is possible that they were unaware of the 77

correct identifications of all of them. The giraffe is not an animal native to 78

Iron Age Palestine, nor is it an animal you would particularly think of 79

eating.9 It was known, however, in Egypt and is depicted in Middle 80

Kingdom reliefs, as it was brought from the southern Sudan as tribute to 81

Egypt by Nubians.10 One notable aspect of the Septuagint’s use of the 82

giraffe is that it could be the earliest appearance of the word in Greek. The 83

earliest literary reference according to LSJ (872) is in the geographer 84

Agatharchides of the second century B.C.E. (On the Erythrean Sea 72), 85

although Aristophanes of Byzantium, a grammarian, might be slightly 86

earlier (History of Animals 2,270.278). Nevertheless, the earliest attestation 87

in any source, and one more or less contemporaneous with the Septuagint, is 88

epigraphic. For, the word is found in Tomb 1 of the Eastern Necropolis of 89

Maresha (Idumea, south of Judah). The burials on this necropolis may be 90

dated to the early third century B.C.E., taking into account the tomb layout, 91

the loculi, the murals, and the inscriptions. Tomb 1 is richly decorated and 92

includes a frieze of hunting scenes in which most of the animal portraits are 93

accompanied by Greek labels.11 A depiction of a lean giraffe, looking more 94

like an alpaca than a camelopard, is accompanied by the term kamhlopa,r-95

dalij.12 This painting tells us two things. First, it shows that even in the 96

later third century the giraffe was not so well-known in Idumea, such that its 97

portrayal is far from accurate. Second, the presence of the giraffe is an 98

solutions. He proposes that the “giraffe” is a correct translation, arising from an

early memory of Egypt of an animal that is clean in theory. 9 Driver, Deuteronomy, 160, simply says of the LXX rendering giraffe that it is “a

native of Africa, and not probable.” Zivotofsky /Zivotofsky / Amar, Giraffe,

204-205, try to show that the giraffe was known in Palestine in different periods,

but the evidence is slim and primarily late Second Temple and afterwards. They

do suggest that it was well known in Egypt (cf. Hobson, Kosher, 311-312) and

thereby entered the Bible. 10 See Meyboom, Nile Mosaic, 24. 11 Kloner, Maresha, 174-175. 12 The name appears to be misspelt as ΚΑΜΕΛΟΠΑΡΔΑΛΟΣ. See Peters / Thiersch,

Tombs, 25. For the apparent errors in the depiction of the giraffe, see the dis-

cussion of Peters / Thiersch, Tombs, 94, and Jacobson, Paintings, 28-29.

indication of Egyptian influence, especially given the possibility that this is 99

an Egyptian hunting scene, which would be unsurprising in the light of the 100

Ptolemaic influence in Idumea. The hunt is most likely taking place in 101

Upper Egypt or Nubia. The label ΑΙΘΙΟΠΙΑ (Ethiopia) is painted near the 102

representation of an elephant, either indicating the origins of its handler or 103

serving as the label for a now defaced figure, the personification of central 104

Africa.13 105

Confirmation of the Egyptian origins of the hunt is found in the 106

similarities between this Maresha hunting scene and the Nile mosaic of 107

Praeneste (Palestrina) in Italy from the late second century B.C.E.14 This 108

highly decorative mosaic is divided into two parts, the upper half depicting 109

a sandy and rocky waste-land that represents Nubia, and the lower half 110

depicting luscious, inhabited regions that represent the Nile valley.15 In the 111

upper half, many African animals roam in the Nubian desert, including the 112

kamhlopa,rdalij “giraffe.”16 The dating of the Praeneste Nile mosaic has 113

been subject to various interpretations, but it seems likely that it can be 114

placed in the second century, close to the time of the translation of Isaiah.17 115

Variation in proposals for a date is due to the lack of strong parallels to such 116

scenes and to the inconclusive nature of the Greek lettering. Dates such as 117

the time of Sulla, Augustus, or Hadrian have been proposed as eras when 118

Roman interest in Egypt would have been piqued, but none are definitive. 119

The most secure dating is that of the later second century B.C.E. (c. 120-110 120

B.C.E.) as it is based on comparative artistic style with the Casa de Fauno in 121

Pompeii.18 Irrespective of the precise date, the mosaic is thought to have 122

been a copy of an original from Egypt and therefore earlier still. 123

The Praeneste and Maresha depictions of the giraffe have their own 124

significance for the Septuagint. The Praeneste mosaic supports the view that 125

in classical times the giraffe was seen as an exotic animal from Nubia, and 126

the Egyptian influence in the Maresha paintings would lend credence to 127

this. Agatharcides, too, reports that the camel is to be found in the region of 128

13 Peters / Thiersch, Tombs, 26. 14 Peters / Thiersch, Tombs, xv–xvi. Jacobson, Paintings, 44, does point out that

some of the animals are also native to the Levant. 15 The most recent detailed discussion of the mosaic is Meyboom, Nile Mosaic.

See too Moffitt, Palestrina Mosaic. 16 The spelling is k[a]mhlopa,r<d>ali[j]. 17 The dating by Seeligman of the LXX Isaiah to the second century, The Septua-

gint Version of Isaiah, still remains the accepted opinion. 18 Meyboom, Nile Mosaic, 16-19.

the nomadic Troglodytes of Nubia.19 That the Maresha artist clearly did not 129

have precise knowledge of the anatomy of the beast further suggests that it 130

was exotic and unfamiliar to Palestine. Interest in the animal might have 131

been sparked by its inclusion in the grand procession of Ptolemy II 132

Philadelphus (282-246 B.C.E., Athenaeus, Deipnosophistai 5,196-203 [201]), 133

who wished to celebrate his accession by showcasing the exotic animals and 134

lands from within the ptolemaic realm. It certainly shows that it was an 135

animal that could convey the exoticism of the distant lands under his 136

control.20 Ptolemy II was well known for his interest in animals, which he 137

put on public display (Diodorus, History III 36,1-37,8), and this is even 138

attested in a Zenon papyrus from the third century B.C.E written by the 139

Jewish aristocrat Toubias, who is likely to be from the same priestly Tobiad 140

family recounted in Josephus and possibly having an estate at ‘Iraq al Amir 141

in Transjordan. This Toubias first writes to Apollonios informing him that 142

he has sent to the king a gift of various animals, which Apollonios is to pass 143

on, and then appends a personal letter to the king, also listing the animals: 144 145

To King Ptolemy from Toubias, greeting. I have sent you two horses, 146 six dogs, one wild mule bred from an ass, two white Arab donkeys, 147 two wild mules’ foals, one wild ass’s foal. Farewell. (P.Cair.Zen. 148 1,59075 = CPJ I 5; 12th May, 257 B.C.E.) 149

150 While some of these animals are everyday species, such as the horses and 151

dogs, others, namely the white donkeys, wild mules and wild asses, are 152

clearly special gifts.21 153

In summary, it appears that the giraffe at the time of the Septuagint 154

translation would have been viewed as an exotic animal from Nubia on the 155

borders of Egypt. It had recently become popular in Egypt as an exotic 156

symbol of the regions under Egyptian control and something of a public 157

spectacle.22 This animal is included among the clean animals to actualize 158

the Egyptian context and thereby impart a certain exoticism to the list of 159

animals. 160

The presence of the giraffe in the list of clean animals also serves a 161

literary function. There was a common association in antiquity between the 162

19 Later traditions also place the giraffe in a variety of exotic places. See Hüne-

mörder, Giraffe. 20 On the intellectual curiosity generated by such triumphal displays, see Murphy,

Pliny, 160-163. 21 Durand, Grecs, 183. 22 Hobson, Hobson, 311, does also recognize that one possible reason why the

translator opted for giraffe was as a guess arising at a time when knowledge of

the giraffe was just coming back into public awareness.

dromedary / camel and the giraffe, seen even in the name of the giraffe as a 163

camelopard, “spotted camel.” As a result, there appears in the Praeneste 164

mosaic, in addition to the representation of the two giraffes, an animal that 165

looks to be a dromedary but bearing the inscription nabouj (nabous).23 The 166

animal appears to have a slight hump above the neck that could be the hump 167

of the dromedary, and it is certainly to be distinguished from the giraffes 168

represented elsewhere in the mosaic.24 The term nabus (in Latin trans-169

cription) is otherwise only reported by Pliny (Natural History 8 XXVII 69), 170

who states that it was the Ethiopian word for giraffe: 171 172

Some resemblances of these [the camel] is passed on to two animals. 173 The Ethiopians give the name of nabun to one that has a neck like a 174 horse, feet and legs like an ox, and a head like a camel, and is of a 175 ruddy colour picked out with white spots, owing to which it is called a 176 cameleopard; it was first seen at Rome at the games in the Circus 177 given by Caesar when Dictator.25 178

179 In this passage, Pliny also makes clear the association between the camel 180

and the giraffe. As late as the fourth century C.E. the association is 181

recognized and expanded upon by Heliodrous (Aethiopica 10,27), who 182

described the giraffe as being as large as a camel and with a head in the 183

manner of a camel.26 The sight of the giraffe was terrible enough that 184

several sacrificial animals took flight in fear (Aethiopica 10,28,2). In the 185

ordering of animals in Deuteronomy the giraffe ends the list of clean 186

ruminates and the camel begins the list of unclean animals (Deut 14:7; 187

Hebrew lm'G"; LXX ka,mhloj), and there is thus a verbal and associative link 188

between the two halves. A similar method of verbal association in Deutero-189

nomy 14 may be seen in verse 5 where the e;lafoj “stag” and trage,lafoj 190

“goat-stag” appear as two related animals. 191

23 Meyboom, Nile Mosaic, 23-24. 24 On attempts to identify the animal in this mosaic as a giraffe rather than a camel,

see Meyboom, Nile Mosaic, 119 25 Translation of Rackham, Pliny, 53. 26 “[Heliodorus] brought him gifts also, among others a beast of wonderful and

rare nature as big as a camel (me,geqoj me.n eivj kamh,lou me,tron u`you,menon). The

colour of his skin was spotted as a leopard (croia.n de. kai. dora.n parda,lewj foli.sin avnqhrai/j evstigme,non). ... His head was after a camel’s fashion ... As

soon as the beast was brought in it filled all the people with amazement and

from the fashion of the principal parts of its body they gave it at once the name

of camelopard” (Aeth. 10.27.1-4). The giraffe forms a typical descriptive pas-

sage in Heliodorus. See Bartsch, Novel, 149.

If it were only the giraffe that creates an exotic flavour in this passage, 192

there could be some hesitation. However, in similar fashion the Egyptian 193

ibis is included as one of the inadmissible birds in Deut 14:16 where the 194

Hebrew has tm,v,n>T i “water-hen”: 195 196

kai. evrwdio.n kai. ku,knon kai. i=bin 197 and heron and swan and ibis (Deut 14:16) 198

199 It is possible that the translator did not know what the Hebrew words 200

signified and therefore opted for a local flavour. It is unlikely, however, that 201

the ibis, as a sacred animal in Egypt (sacred to Thoth), was eaten, although 202

it could be used in sacrifice. 203

Furthermore, the list of animals identified by the translator in Deut 14:5 204

shares a correspondence with lists of animals elsewhere. In verse 5 we find 205

the bou,baloj “an African antelope,” the pu,gargoj, “white-rump,” the name 206

of a kind of antelope, and the o;rux “a gazelle” of Egypt and Libya. These 207

three animals all appear in one passage of Herodotus’s History (4,192): 208 209

But in the nomads’ country there are none of these; but there are 210 others, white-rumped antelopes (pu,gargoj), gazelles, hartebeest 211 (bou,baloj), asses, not the horned asses, but those that are called 212 “undrinking” (for indeed they never drink), the oryx (o;rux), whose 213 horns are made the horns of the lyre (this is a beast the size of a bull). 214

215 This passage in Herodotus follows on from Darius’s expedition into Libya, 216

which calls for a geography and ethnography of the region similar to the 217

Egyptian logos of Book 2. It seems that the discussion of Libya, as earlier of 218

Scythia, could be influenced by Hecataeus.27 Egyptian sources must have 219

played a role, and in similar fashion to the Praeneste mosaic, the historian 220

recreates a picture of the lands beyond Egypt. While the Septuagint trans-221

lator need not have read Herodotus, it should be noted that the influence of 222

Herodotus in the Hellenistic period is significant,28 and that even in Jewish 223

circles his work seems to have been known.29 What is clear is that the trans-224

lator has written of Egyptian animals, again contextualizing it in Egypt.30 225

One other animal in the list of acceptable ruminates also calls for 226

comment. The trage,lafoj “goat-stag” is recorded in LSJ (1809) as origin-227

27 Jacoby, Fragmente, 371, sees chapters 168-199 as a summary and no more of

Hecataeus. Cf. Asheri / Lloyd / Corcella, Commentary, 568-569. 28 See Murray, Herodotus. 29 Camponigro, Judith. 30 A similar adaptation of non-kosher animals is noted by de Troyer in the case of

Lev 11:21, where the translators seem to have struggled with the type of animals

identified by its legs. See De Troyer, Legs.

nally having been a fantastical animal in Greek. Thus in Aristophanes’s 228

Frogs the character of Euripides sees it as a decorative, if fictitious, animal, 229

exclaiming (937-938): 230 231

Not hipporoosters, by God, nor goat-stags (trage,lafoj), like you, 232 which they depict on Persian tapestries. 233

234 In similar fashion, Plato sees it as a hybrid animal depicted only by painters 235

rather than one reflecting reality (Republic 6,488a): 236 237

But to find a likeness for it and a defence for them one must bring 238 together many things in such a combination as painters mix when they 239 portray goat-stags and similar creatures. 240

241 It is such fantastical representations that probably led to its later use by the 242

lexicographer Stephanus to refer to any animal whose name is uncertain 243

(“what’s-its-name, thingumbob,” LSJ 1809). Although LSJ claims that over 244

time the trage,lafoj came to denote a real animal, citing LXX Job 39:1, 245

Diodorus Siculus 2,51 and Pliny’s Natural History 8 L 120, these very 246

authors delight in exotic descriptions of animals, the latter two often 247

drawing upon Agatharcides. 248

249

2. Dietary Laws in Second Temple Judaism 250 251

The giraffe as a translation choice is reflective of the place of dietary laws 252

in Second Temple Judaism more widely. In sources from that time we read 253

often of the observance of dietary laws, but almost never with any 254

specification as to what specifically is observed or avoided. The literature 255

does not seem to build upon, or at least define, the observance in terms of 256

Leviticus 11 or Deuteronomy 14. In Judith, Tobit, Additions to Esther and 257

Daniel, the refusal to take unclean food is closely connected with mixing 258

with foreigners rather than with a problem with the food itself.31 The food is 259

defiled by being the food of foreigners rather than actually being from non-260

kosher foodstuffs. In Judith, the heroine prepares her own food rather than 261

eat with Holofernes, but the one explicit reference to eating unlawful food 262

(chapter 11) is the eating of food reserved for the priests. In Tobit (1:10-11) 263

the avoidance is of the food of Gentiles, a sign that Tobit is mindful of God. 264

Indeed, the avoidance of meats of any kind is regularly presented: Daniel 265

and his companions avoided non-kosher food while they were held captive 266

in the court of Nebuchadnezzar through a vegan diet (Dan 1:8-16). In his 267

broad study, MacDonald concludes that there is a developing food 268

consciousness in this period, beginning with the exilic development of the 269

food laws themselves and finding most focus from the time of the 270

31 See MacDonald, Bread, 199-201.

Maccabees on, but that the role of the dietary laws from the Torah should 271

not be over-emphasized. 272

The two exceptions are the Letter of Aristeas, which contains a dis-273

cussion of the food laws, and the Books of the Maccabees, which portrays 274

the consumption of the pig as the transgressing of God’s law. The Aristeas 275

passage, recounting the banquet discussion between the Jewish philosophers 276

and King Ptolemy, focuses on the ethical significance of the laws, perhaps 277

because it is apparently aimed at a wider Greek audience. 278 279

144 ... For you must not fall into the degrading idea that it was out of 280 regard to mice and weasels and other such things that Moses drew up 281 his laws with such exceeding care. All these ordinances were made for 282 the sake of righteousness to aid the quest for virtue and 145 the 283 perfecting of character. For all the birds that we use are tame and 284 distinguished by their cleanliness, feeding on various kinds of grain 285 and pulse, such as for instance pigeons, turtle-doves, 146 locusts, 286 partridges, geese also [peristerai. trugo,nej a;ttakoi pe,rdikej e;ti de. 287 ch/ne], and all other birds of this class. But the birds which are 288 forbidden you will find to be wild and carnivorous, tyrannizing over 289 the others by the strength which they possess, and cruelly obtaining 290 food by preying on the tame birds enumerated above. 291

292 Aristeas here pre-empts later rabbinic discussion in suggesting that kosher 293

animals are those that are naturally tame. Philo later, in similar fashion, 294

focused on the ethical reasoning for the kosher laws,32 which should not 295

necessarily be seen as an avoidance by him of the laws but a reflection of 296

his philosophical interests.33 For him, the food laws are particularly 297

demonstrative of self-restraint and the avoidance of gluttony. There is 298

indeed a similar tradition in both Aristeas and Philo that explains dividing 299

the hoof (Aristeas 150-152; Philo, Special Laws 4,109) and chewing the cud 300

(Aristeas 153-160; Philo, Special Laws 4,107-108) as distinguishing 301

between good and evil on the one hand and meditating on reason on the 302

other. Nevertheless, even if explanation and rationalization of the food laws 303

are not to be taken as indicative of a neglect of them, there is a curiosity to 304

be found in Aristeas. 305

The author of Aristeas is aware of Lev 11:29 in his ironic comic on mice 306

and weasels, but his listing of the other animals is a surprising combination. 307

32 Hadas-Lebel, Philo, 97-99; Termini, Philo’s Thought. 33 Collins, Athens, 13.19-24, examines how the constraints of tradition affects

writers in the diaspora, including the extent to which they avoid such topics as

dietary laws as markers of Jewish identity. Philo’s allegorizing of the laws could

be seen as an example of such levelling of the tradition, but has also to be seen

in its philosophical context.

For, the animals are not from the kosher lists of Leviticus 11 or Deutero-308

nomy 14 in the Septuagint, despite the author’s familiarity with the Septua-309

gint text.34 Although the pigeons and turtle-doves are common pairings for 310

offerings in the Bible (Gen 15:9; Lev 1:14, and elsewhere), if not in the key 311

passages of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, the partridge and goose are not in 312

the Bible at all. The locust is the one animal specified in Lev 11:22, but its 313

appearance in fact seems odd in a list of domesticated fowl. Hence, it has 314

been suggested that one should follow Eusebius’s text and replace a;ttakoi 315

by avttagai/ “moor-fowl” or “francolin, Tetrao orientalis” (LSJ 273).35 If this 316

is correct, this would once more be a bird not found in the Bible. Notably, 317

the moor-fowl or francolin appears to be considered a delicacy in many 318

writers of the time. Athenaeus is illustrative (Deipnosophistae 9,387f-388a): 319 320

The Francolin. – Aristophanes in The Storks: “The francolin, sweetest 321 meat to cook at the feast of victory.” Alexander of Myndus says that it 322 is a little larger than a partridge, entirely covered with variegated 323 markings on its back, of clay colour tending to red. It can be caught by 324 hunters because of its weight and the shortness of its wings. It likes to 325 roll in the dust, is prolific, and feeds on seeds.36 326

327 This highlights the fact that all the animals named in Aristeas would have 328

been popular in Hellenistic dining traditions. They are regularly mentioned 329

in feasts of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, and therefore they might 330

reflect what was actually eaten, rather than be intended as a precise 331

interpretation of the dietary laws. Archaeological evidence does not assist 332

much in determining what was actually eaten in Palestine of the time, since 333

few archaeological reports have included data on faunal remains.37 Pigeons 334

and doves appear to have been raised in large numbers in Judea and neigh-335

bouring Idumea (especially Maresha), judging from the hewn caves and 336

purpose built towers that have been found.38 Bone remains also indicate in 337

various sites the use of pigeons and doves, but it is not possible to determine 338

from remains whether they were used only for sacrifice, or also for 339

consumption.39 Similar reflections might also explain the focus on the pig in 340

the Maccabean books, as the one animal among all others that was actually 341

34 The use of the Septuagint in Aristeas was well documented by Meecham, Letter. 35 See Hadas, Aristeas, 159. 36 Gulick, Deipnosophists. 37 Lev-Tov, Meat, 432-433. 38 Lev-Tov, Meat, 434. For Maresha, see Kloner, Maresha Excavations, 42-45. 39 Lev-Tov, Meat, 434.

eaten in antiquity but rejected by Jews. The other animals were not commonly 342

eaten by non-Jews and therefore did not mark out the Jews as differrent.40 343

The significance of this discussion is that it throws light on the Greek 344

translation of the permitted animals in Deuteronomy. Meat consumption in 345

antiquity would not have been extensive, but would have been common 346

even among the poor, as has been shown for the Roman period.41 Most 347

people would have had some, if limited, access to meat. It is, however, 348

likely that access would have been to only certain types of animal. As a 349

result, any translator faced with the biblical list of animals, after itemizing 350

the more common animals, such as calf, lamb and goat (Deut 14:4), would 351

have been challenged to find additional animals to include in the long list. 352

The Egyptianizing technique used by the translator of Deuteronomy was 353

one method to expand the list without difficulty. It does nevertheless have 354

the effect, perhaps unintentionally, of conveying exoticism in the dining 355

tradition, a notable aspect of Graeco-Roman discussion of food habits. 356

It is not always possible to determine from literary sources what was 357

actually eaten and this is as true for the Graeco-Roman period as any other. 358

Although recipe books have survived (most famously that of Apicius), they 359

are compilations from a later period, and narrative descriptions of feasting 360

often have intentions beyond describing the foodstuffs. Nevertheless, such 361

narratives define attitudes that are demarcated by food. Galen admits that a 362

wide range of animals were eaten, so that not only were sheep, cows and 363

pigs consumed but also people would be found eating donkeys, camels, 364

bears, leopards, lions, panthers and dogs (On the Power of Foods 6,664-365

665K).42 In part, this reflects the need to eat whatever was available, but 366

also signifies an attitude that permits any meat, however outlandish, to be 367

eaten. Pliny takes this one step further in an attempt to display both culinary 368

sophistication and wealth when he describes the serving of an elephant’s 369

trunk (Natural History 8 X 31). 370 371

Luxury has also discovered another thing that recommends the ele-372 phant, the flavour in the hard skin of the trunk, sought after, I believe, 373 for no other reason than because the epicure feels that he is munching 374 actual ivory.43 375 376

There is no reason to believe that the trunk was actually eaten, and any 377

exotic dining would have been a rare event. These passages highlight, how-378

ever, the way food was used to define social status, as much as speaking of 379

40 Cf. on this Rosenblum, Pork. 41 Meggitt, Meat Consumption. 42 See on this, Beer, Taste, 25-26. 43 Rackham, Pliny, 25.

champagne and caviar would today. While the dietary laws in Septuagint 380

Deuteronomy do not go to such extremes as Pliny’s elephant trunk, they do 381

provide a list of surprising and exotic animals in addition to the mainstay 382

foodstuffs. In this way, the translation choices present to the reader a 383

luxurious menu of tasting delights that entertains as much as informs. 384

385

3. Conclusion 386 387

The tradition of the giraffe was established in the Septuagint and has had a 388

prolonged influence. It appears that the translator was faced with a range of 389

animals to translate, even though the actual diet at the time was limited to a 390

few animals at most. He therefore opted for translation equivalents that 391

conveyed the exoticism of Egypt. This is particularly represented by the 392

giraffe, an animal that had gained cultural status in Egypt of the third 393

century B.C.E., portrayed in representations of the distant lands beyond the 394

borders of Upper Egypt. This fits within the wider context of the descript-395

tions of dietary laws in Second Temple times. Little attention is paid to the 396

specificity of the laws, authors preferring to speak of avoidance of food-397

stuffs in general without detailing what the foodstuffs are. Where the ani-398

mals are named, as in Aristeas, they are not necessarily the animals from the 399

biblical text, since the reality of access to certain foods alone guided the 400

descriptions and not the matter of conforming to the biblical text. 401

402

Summary 403 404

One of the more surprising animals considered lawful to eat is the giraffe. While the 405 meaning of the Hebrew term in the list of clean ruminates (Deut 14:5) remains 406 uncertain, the Septuagint is the first to identify it as a giraffe. The reason seems to be 407 the cultural prominence that the giraffe gained in Egypt of the third century B.C.E., 408 leading the translator to make the text both Egyptian and exotic. This is indicative of 409 other animals in the list of permissible foods, chosen more for the exoticism they 410 lend to the passage than as animals that were actually eaten. From this it may be 411 suggested that the application of the kosher laws to animals would have been applied 412 only minimally, since few animals would have been available for eating. The 413 translator resorts to exoticism in translating the list of animals, possibly reflecting a 414 wider interest in antiquity in fine and peculiar dining. 415 416

Zusammenfassung 417 418 Höchst überraschend wird die Giraffe nach der Tora als essbares Tier besprochen. 419 Im Text von Dtn 14,5 ist bei der Auflistung der kultisch reinen Tiere das hebräische 420 Wort unsicher, aber die Septuaginta identifiziert das erste als eine Giraffe. Der 421 Grund dafür könnte sein, dass dieses exotische Tier im Ägypten des 3. Jh. v.Chr 422 einen kulturell bedingten relativen Bekanntheitsgrad erreicht hatte. Dieser Umstand 423 mag den Übersetzer dazu veranlasst haben, seinen Text ägyptisch und exotisch zu 424

gestalten. Das gilt auch für andere Tiere, die als zum Verzehr erlaubt angeführt 425 werden zu. Es handelt sich eher um Exoten als um Tiere, die tatsächlich verspeist 426 wurden. Das zeigt uns, dass die Koscher Bestimmungen nur minimal berücksichtigt 427 wurden, denn ansonsten wären nur wenige Tiere zur Nahrungsaufnahme zur 428 Verfügung gestanden. Der Übersetzer der gelisteten Tiere bedient sich des Exoti-429 schen, möglicherweise um ein breites Interesse an gehobener und herausstechender 430 Tischkultur in der Antike zu reflektieren. 431 432

Bibliography 433 434 Asheri, D. / Lloyd, A. / Corcella, A., A Commentary on Herodotus, Books I-IV (ed. 435

Murray, O. / Moreno, A.), Oxford 2007. 436 Bartsch, S., Decoding the Ancient Novel: the Reader and the Role of Description in 437

Heliodorus and Achilles Tatius, Princeton 1989. 438 Beer, M., Taste or Taboo: Dietary Choices in Antiquity, Totnes 2010. 439 Camponigro, M.S., Judith, Holding the Tale of Herodotus, in: Vanderkam, J.C. 440

(ed.), “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith, Atlanta, GA 1992, 47-59. 441 Collins, J.J., Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic 442

Diaspora, Grand Rapids, MI 2000. 443 De Troyer, K., The Legs and the Wings of the Grasshopper: A Case Study on 444

Changes in the Masoretic Text and in the Old Greek Translations of the Book of 445 Leviticus, in: Weissenberg, H. von / Pakkala, J. / Marttila, M. (eds.), Changes in 446 Scripture: Rewriting and Interpreting Authoritative Traditions in the Second 447 Temple Period, Berlin 2011, 153-163. 448

Driver, S.R., Deuteronomy (ICC), Edinburgh 31901. 449 Durand, X., Des Grecs en Palestine au IIIe siècle avant Jésus-Christ: le dossier 450

syrien des archives de Zénon de Caunos, 261-252 (Cahiers de la Revue biblique 451 38), Paris 1997. 452

Gulick, C.B., The Deipnosophists, 6 (LCL 327), London 1937. 453 Hadas, M., Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas) (Jewish Apocryphal Litera-454

ture), New York 1951. 455 Hadas-Lebel, M., Philo of Alexandria: A Thinker in the Jewish Diaspora (Studies in 456

Philo of Alexandria), Leiden 2012. 457 Hobson, T. Kosher in the Greek: The Giraffe and the Snake-fighter? in: ZABR 19 458

(2013) 307-312. 459 Hünemörder, C., Giraffe, in: Cancik, H. / Schneider, H. / Landfester, M. (eds.), 460

DNP 4, Stuttgart 1996/2003, 1075. 461 Jacobson, D.M., The Hellenistic Paintings of Marisa (APEF 7), Leeds 2007. 462 Jacoby, F., Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker. Teil 1: Genealogie und 463

Mythigraphie. A: Vorrede, text, addenda, konkordanz, Leiden 1957. 464 Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and 465

the Midrashic Literature, New York 1926. 466 Kafikh, R.Y., Commentaries of Rabbi Sa‘adyah Gaon on the Torah, Jerusalem 1984 467

(Hebrew). 468 Kloner, A., Maresha Excavations Final Report. I, Subterranean Complexes 21, 44, 469

70, Jerusalem 2003. 470

Kloner, A., Maresha in the Reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, in: McKechnie, P.R. / 471 Guillaume, P. (eds.), Ptolemy the Second Philadelphus and His World, Leiden 472 2008, 171-182. 473

Koehler, L. / Baumgartner, W., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old 474 Testament, Revised, Leiden 1994. 475

Lev-Tov, J.S.E., “Upon What Meat Doth this Our Caesar Feed ...?”: A Dietary 476 Perspective on Hellenistic and Roman Influence in Palestine, in: Alkier, S. / 477 Zangenberg, J. (eds.), Zeichen aus Text und Stein: Studien auf dem Weg zu 478 einer Archäologie des Neuen Testaments, Tübingen 2003. 479

MacDonald, N., Not Bread Alone: The Uses of Food in the Old Testament, Oxford 480 2008. 481

Meecham, H.G., The Letter of Aristeas: A Linguistic Study with Special Reference 482 to the Greek Bible, Manchester 1935. 483

Meggitt, J.J., Meat Consumption and Social Conflict in Corinth, in: JTS 45 (1994) 484 137-141. 485

Meyboom, P.G.P., The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina: Early Evidence of Egyptian 486 Religion in Italy (Religions in the Graeco-Roman world 121), Leiden 1995. 487

Moffitt, J.F., The Palestrina Mosaic with a “Nile Scene”: Philostratus and Ekphrasis; 488 Ptolemy and Chorographia, in: ZfK 60 (1997) 227-247. 489

Murphy, T.M., Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia, 490 Oxford 2004. 491

Murray, O., Herodotus and Hellenistic Culture, in: CQ 22 (1972) 200-213. 492 Peters, J.P. / Thiersch, H., Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa (Marēshah) 493

(ed. Cook, S.A.), London 1905. 494 Pietersma, A. / Wright, B.G. (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint: 495

and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title, Oxford 496 2007. 497

Rackham, H., Pliny, Natural History, 3 (LCL 353), London, 1940. 498 Rosenblum, J., “Why do You Refuse to Eat Pork?”: Jews, Food, and Identity in 499

Roman Palestine, in: JQR 100 (2010) 95-110. 500 Seeligman, I.L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of its Problems 501

(Mededelingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap 502 “Ex Oriente Lux” 9), Leiden 1948. 503

Termini, C., Philo’s Thought within the Context of Middle Judaism, in: Kamesar, A. 504 (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Philo, Cambridge 2009, 119-121. 505

Zivotofsky, D. / Zivotofsky, A.Z. / Amar, Z., Giraffe: A Halakhically Oriented 506 Dissection, in: The Torah U-Madda Journal 11 (2002-2003) 203-221. 507

508

509 Prof. Dr. James K. Aitken 510 University of Cambridge 511 Faculty of Divinity 512 West Road 513 Cambridge, CB3 9BS 514 Great Britain 515 E-Mail: jka12@cam.ac.uk 516