Daniel's study of vegetarianism

[Dr Cranberry]

I'm assured by a Seventh Day Adventist friend that Daniel 1 is an ancient scientific study of whether vegetarianism is superior to meat eating. Certainly, in the KJV translation, it appears that a staunch vegetarian is asking for "pulse" (legumes) instead of "meat". After passing the 10 day test, the King then gives Daniel "pulse".

[5] And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king.
[6] Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah:
[7] Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names: for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego.
[8] But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.
[9] Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.
[10] And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.
[11] Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,
[12] Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.
[12] Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.
[13] Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.
[14] So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.
[15] And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.

However, in the interlinear Hebrew version, I can barely see what food is being offered to Daniel
http://interlinearbible.org/daniel/1.htm

It makes reference to wine, but does not appear to say anything else. Why should the kings food contrast with "vegetables". Is there something terribly culturally missing from the picture?

I'm having difficulty reconciling this with Matthew 15:11
“It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

The Bible starts off with the assumption that life can be extended if you avoid sin, and eat clean foods. When Christianity arrives, it's believed that you can only have afterlife (not life extension), and that what you eat is irrelevant to your health, because it's not sin. As the centuries progressed, by the 18th-19th century, all manner of naturopathic theories once again placed food at the centre, and it was once again believed that vegetarianism was both physically and spiritually superior. This way of thinking still influences scientific studies into various diets. The studies produce random numbers, demonstrating small effects, and then figures from cherry picked studies are then presented as statistics in health magazines.

Is the person who wrote Daniel lying, or is the effect of good vegetarian health only applicable to Daniel?

[Dr Cranberry]

I've solved it !!!

Daniel was a seed eater.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...OTpdf/dan1.pdf

That explains why the KJV uses "pulses" and the apparent paradox of why Daniel is not requesting anything other than pulses. He rejects the kings normal human food/feasts.

It makes sense, now.

[MaxVel]

Adam Clarke's Commentary says: -

The chief reasons why Daniel would not eat meat from the royal table were probably these three: -
1. Because they ate unclean beasts, which were forbidden by the Jewish law.
2. Because they ate, as did the heathens in general, beasts which had been strangled, or not properly blooded.
3. Because the animals that were eaten were first offered as victims to their gods.

I think that the text doesn't make clear what exactly Daniel's reasons were, so we can only speculate, but it seems most likely that it was because the food was 'unclean' according to the Mosaic law

[Dr Cranberry]

That's the orthodox explanation, but I think it's not really supported by what is written.

Daniel comes into the story with a point to prove - he knows in advance that he will fair better without whatever the king is eating. Why would he know this, if it was an arbitrary dietary restriction?
He does not request any beasts or birds to be slaughtered in a Mosaic way to replace the meat.
He rejects the wine as well.
The text says he asked for seeds and water, and that this appears to have replaced ALL the king's food.
There is no mention of unclean beasts; only that the king's food will defile him in an unspecified way, which is consistent with vegetarian puritanism.

A diet consisting entirely of seeds and sprouted raw seeds is consistent with some vegetarian Essene diets.
JB lived on honey and locusts (the insects). These visionary types tended to eat strange diets. (Even if they were fictitious.)

[MaxVel]

That's the orthodox explanation, but I think it's not really supported by what is written.

Daniel comes into the story with a point to prove - he knows in advance that he will fair better without whatever the king is eating. Why would he know this, if it was an arbitrary dietary restriction?

Where do you get the idea that it was an arbitrary restriction? Do you mean that the Hebrew dietary code was arbitrary?

I think the point of the story is that Daniel - by being obedient to what God asked of Him - was blessed, and prospered. Don't forget the wider context: the Jews where there in the first place as the result of a judgment for their continued disobedience, and for honouring other gods instead of YHWH. Daniel refuses to eat anything that might be religiously unclean or a sacrifice to a pagan god. And he does well, really well, as a result.

He does not request any beasts or birds to be slaughtered in a Mosaic way to replace the meat.
He rejects the wine as well.
The text says he asked for seeds and water, and that this appears to have replaced ALL the king's food.
There is no mention of unclean beasts; only that the king's food will defile him in an unspecified way, which is consistent with vegetarian puritanism.

It's also consistent with religious (i.e. Mosaic Law) reasons for not eating the King's food.

A diet consisting entirely of seeds and sprouted raw seeds is consistent with some vegetarian Essene diets.
JB lived on honey and locusts (the insects). These visionary types tended to eat strange diets. (Even if they were fictitious.)

You seem determined to prove vegetarianism from texts that you apparently think relate fiction. Odd.

[The Pixie]

He does not request any beasts or birds to be slaughtered in a Mosaic way to replace the meat.
He rejects the wine as well.
The text says he asked for seeds and water, and that this appears to have replaced ALL the king's food.
There is no mention of unclean beasts; only that the king's food will defile him in an unspecified way, which is consistent with vegetarian puritanism.

Given his situation, Daniel probably thought he could get away with asking for seeds and water - things that would be readily available, with no trouble to the royal household - where he might not be so lucky asking for ritually clean meat.

Also, if he eats seeds and water, he knows they will not defile him. If he eats the meat, how can he be sure it really is ritually clean? Better to be safe with the seeds and water.

[Sparko]

No. Daniel refused to eat the meat on the King's table because such meat had been sacrificed to false gods. They would sacrifice the best animals to their gods, then prepare it for the priests and the royals to eat. So rather than take that chance and dishonor God and break the Law, Daniel only ate vegetables. God rewarded him by making him healthy.

[Mountain Man]

That's my understanding as well. The book of Daniel is not meant to be diet advice for believers.

[Sparko]

That's my understanding as well. The book of Daniel is not meant to be diet advice for believers.

right. The point was that Daniel was faithful to God and refused to bow down to false gods and God rewarded him for it.

[Dr Cranberry]

>> You seem determined to prove vegetarianism from texts that you apparently think relate fiction. Odd.

(Can't get the quote system to work) No, I'm canvassing 3 options.

(1) The option that Sev Day Adventist believers want to be true is that Daniel avoided the king's meat and was naturally healthier for eating a vegetarian diet (and god had nothing to do with it).

(2) the orthodox explanation denies SDAs this latitude, because Daniel was rewarded [magically] by god, for avoiding non-kosher foods, even though he restricted himself to a strange subset diet that apparently had no fruit. That is to say, an atheist would not be rewarded for this arbitrarily restrictive diet of "seeds", and would probably look rather palid, unless he had been reading dietary propaganda about how great the raw food all-seed diet is.

(3) option 3, which is also not palatable to SDAs, is that Daniel was only fatter of face, by following a diet that would likely make most people sick, if it were not for divine intervention.

This article on the Essene diet say they ate fruit and wine, but were devout vegetarians.
http://users.resist.ca/~kirstena/pageessenes.html

[Catholicity]

(2) the orthodox explanation denies SDAs this latitude, because Daniel was rewarded [magically] by god, for avoiding non-kosher foods, even though he restricted himself to a strange subset diet that apparently had no fruit. That is to say, an atheist would not be rewarded for this arbitrarily restrictive diet of "seeds", and would probably look rather palid, unless he had been reading dietary propaganda about how great the raw food all-seed diet is.

Dude: DID you READ the Verse at ALL? HE did not want to violate the law laid down by God and eat meat, sacrificed to Idols, as is forbidden in Leviticus and Numbers.. Are you coherent or an idiot, Medically speaking a diet of fruit and seed or raw vegetable and waters is not recommended for lengthy periods of time except under careful periods of supervision or during intervention of some sort. Daniel by obeying God's law was rewarded by God with health. (this is not to say that short periods of time of raw food don't do wonders they really do) HOWEVER you aren't understanding the point they wouldn't have known this at the time Daniel was written. Pay attention and stop sounding like some sort of SCHIZO!!!!

[Dr Cranberry]

right. The point was that Daniel was faithful to God and refused to bow down to false gods and God rewarded him for it.

It could well be interpreted that way. However, [and I know this is an argument from silence], Daniel 1 does not mention that the king was indignant about his refusal to eat the food. Merely that the king was offering fine food, and expected all his favoured guests to benefit from it. The servant was concerned that he might be blamed for starving his guests, so needed proof that the arbitrarily restrictive diet would not harm his guests. That is: the proposed diet seemed preposterous to the king's servant, so much so, that its effects would be obvious after 10 days. The level of preposterousness is backed up by the story explicitly saying "seeds" and "water". If you are going to detail water, why not mention fruit or bread, or something normal?

[Dr Cranberry]

Dude: DID you READ the Verse at ALL? HE did not want to violate the law laid down by God and eat meat, sacrificed to Idols, as is forbidden in Leviticus and Numbers.. Are you coherent or an idiot, Medically speaking a diet of fruit and seed or raw vegetable and waters is not recommended for lengthy periods of time except under careful periods of supervision or during intervention of some sort. Daniel by obeying God's law was rewarded by God with health. (this is not to say that short periods of time of raw food don't do wonders they really do) HOWEVER you aren't understanding the point they wouldn't have known this at the time Daniel was written. Pay attention and stop sounding like some sort of SCHIZO!!!!

Thankyou for your baseless troll, troll.

[MaxVel]

>> You seem determined to prove vegetarianism from texts that you apparently think relate fiction. Odd.

(Can't get the quote system to work) No, I'm canvassing 3 options.

OK. I'll give my thoughts on the options you outline below...

(1) The option that Sev Day Adventist believers want to be true is that Daniel avoided the king's meat and was naturally healthier for eating a vegetarian diet (and god had nothing to do with it).

I think that completely misses the wider context. The book of Daniel has a number of incidents where Jewish people chose to be obedient to God rather than their captors, and God protected, rewarded and blessed them for their obedience. This is the first one. To say that 'God had nothing to do with it' to me displays an ignorance pf the immediate and wider contexts.

What do you think the author of Daniel would have intended his audience to understand by the passage? I really doubt that they would have thought "Gee, sounds like this vegetarianism thing is a good idea. No more meat for me, ever."

(2) the orthodox explanation denies SDAs this latitude, because Daniel was rewarded [magically] by god, for avoiding non-kosher foods, even though he restricted himself to a strange subset diet that apparently had no fruit. That is to say, an atheist would not be rewarded for this arbitrarily restrictive diet of "seeds", and would probably look rather palid, unless he had been reading dietary propaganda about how great the raw food all-seed diet is.

Basically I agree. I think the clear intention of the text is to point out that by obedience to God they prospered, were kept safe, and won favour in the eyes of the Babylonians - rather than by compromising and eating unclean foods. Readers would be aware of the wider context of why Daniel at al were in Babylon in the first place - for disobedience, compromising and following other gods - and would see this passage (and others in Daniel) as a reminder not to do the same, but to remain obedient, even when it seems safer to do otherwise.

(3) option 3, which is also not palatable to SDAs, is that Daniel was only fatter of face, by following a diet that would likely make most people sick, if it were not for divine intervention.

This article on the Essene diet say they ate fruit and wine, but were devout vegetarians.
http://users.resist.ca/~kirstena/pageessenes.html

I don't see vegetarianism as being something you can justify biblically, except by being very selective. God gave the Israelites quail as food; The Levitical priests ate the meat of animals that were sacrificed; The Passover Lamb was a God-ordained meat meal; Jesus and Paul both affirmed that all food is 'clean'... and so on.

If someone wants to be a vegetarian, fine, but it's not required for God's people, nor is it somehow more spiritual than any other dietary choice.

[Mountain Man]

Also, I don't see why it's so preposterous in the context of scripture that God would have rewarded Daniel for remaining obedient.