Thursday, February 11, 2016

Why So Few Positive Mentions of Dogs in the Bible?

Dogs don't get many positive mentions in the Bible. Good people can disagree why. Some think it's because prior to the modern age of vaccines and pesticides, dogs carried rabies, fleas, and ticks. Others think it's because feral dogs were associated with trash and grave robbing. The real reason, of course, is that Noah got tired of holding the damn umbrella.


JoeMama said...

Other possibilities include the Jewish people's OCD regard for hygiene and the fact that dogs eat "human quality" food, thus are in direct competition for resources needed to keep humans alive.

Dogs either fended for themselves or were artifacts of wealth. As such, they were held in low regard by folks just scraping by.

SecondThoughtsOptional said...

Most parts of the world, dogs eat kitchen scraps and trash, up to and including human waste. If you've ever seen a dog enthusiastically clear up the contents of a baby's nappy, you'll never want it to lick your face again. When dogs are mostly scavengers, you don't really want them around you.

Feeding dogs specially made food is a new(ish) thing, particularly when we're talking about dogs kept solely for pleasure. Feeding dogs food that could have gone directly to feed people (rather than meat offcuts, offal, condemned carcasses and feed-quality grain) is a newer thing still. This blog writes about it far better than I can.

Ed Baptist said...

Is that a scene we will see at Ark Encounter?

seeker said...

Making dogs unclean also takes them out of the edible animal class. It was a sort of protection for working dogs and hunting dogs. It prevents short sighted people from wanting to eat dog during times of short food supply. I mean you wouldn't want to eat a terrier who could catch or run to ground game or a sheepdog that kept the flock safe.

I don't know this for sure, but it kind of makes sense.

Debi and the squirrel hunting/snake killing JackRat Pack.