Against the Grain and Over the Line: Reflections on Comparative

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

• Intrinsic impurity is inherent in an object (e.g., carrion or pork) due to its very nature. Some religious authorities also regard certain people as intrinsically impure. • Circumstantial impurity is caused by some form of contact with an intrinsically impure substance (e.g., eating carrion) or by the occurrence of certain natural, non-sinful events (e.g., licit sexual intercourse). Persons or objects that suffer this commonplace and generally removable form of impurity are polluted.

Religions 2018, 9, 44; doi:10.3390/rel9020044 www.mdpi.com/journal/religions Religions 2018, 9, 44 2 of 13

• Offensive impurity refers to the deﬁlement generated by particularly sinful behavior (e.g., idolatry or illicit sexual intercourse). One who commits such a grave offense is deﬁled. I created this typology of impurity by amalgamating the distinctions developed by academic scholars of the Hebrew Bible and ancient Judaism on the one hand and medieval scholars of Islamic law on the other (Klawans 2000; Gauvain 2005, pp. 341–43). This typology also proves useful for understanding Christian discourse about impurity, as I hope to demonstrate in passing below, and it might be of relevance to the analysis of impurity discourse in other traditions as well.

1. All Foods are Pure! Augustine, the bishop of Hippo (d. 430), was deep into his literary debate with Faustus, a Manichean, over the proper interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. Among their many skirmishes, Augustine ridicules Manicheans for their refusal to eat meat while Faustus charges Christians with hypocrisy for their failure to adhere to biblical dietary laws. Augustine leans heavily in his treatise Against Faustus on a dictum in Paul’s Letter to Titus: ‘For the pure all things are pure, but for the impure and unbelieving nothing is pure; their minds and consciousness are defiled’ (Tit. 1.15).1 This verse performs double duty for Augustine: it justifies Christian consumption of all foodstuffs without distinction—for the pure, after all, everything is pure—and it explains why Manicheans claim that foods are impure. Manicheans, Augustine explains, are defiled on account of their offensive beliefs regarding the body of Christ (Contra Faustum 6.6). Elsewhere, Augustine adds that Paul derides as ‘impure and unbelieving’ those who wrongfully insist on continued adherence to dietary laws in the era of the new covenant, a position that the Manicheans exemplify (31.4). Faustus, however, contests the very authority of Titus 1.15 by questioning its Pauline authenticity; in fact, historical critical scholars agree with Faustus that Titus is pseudo-Pauline. Faustus rests his argument against this verse on its incoherence with both Christian practice and other scriptural passages: ‘If you think [Christianity] reckons nothing as impure, then you must first admit that there are no Christians among you. All of you, after all, regard as no small impurity carrion and sacrificial food, not to mention other examples’ (Contra Faustum 31.2, (Augustine 1891, p. 758)). Faustus has in mind not only contemporary behavior but also Acts of the Apostles, which reports that apostles and elders gathered in Jerusalem—Paul among them—required all believers in Christ to abstain ‘from what has been offered to idols, from blood, from that which was strangled, and from fornication’ (Acts 15.29). This injunction, known as the Apostolic Decree, is a bedrock of early canon law (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 94–96, 101–9). These precedents notwithstanding, Augustine was unwilling to concede any place within Christianity for the impurity of foodstuffs: doing so would undermine his arguments against Manicheism. Nor, of course, was Augustine willing to question the Pauline authenticity of the Letter to Titus. He therefore explains away the Old Testament prohibition of carrion, repeated in a number of early Church councils, as nothing more than a sensible medical precaution: carrion is not impure, it is simply unhealthy. Augustine also fundamentally reinterprets the Apostolic Decree. Christians, he explains through an interpretation of Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, must abstain from food known to have been offered to idols lest they defile themselves through willful association with demons (1 Cor. 10.20). Augustine insists, however, that there is nothing intrinsically impure about that food itself, which is why someone who does not know the food’s sacrificial origins may safely consume it (10.25–28). Augustine, in other words, distinguishes between offensive and intrinsic impurity, as defined above, and he insists that the Apostolic Decree refers to the former alone. Augustine also declares, without precedent, that the Apostolic Decree’s prohibitions against blood and the meat of strangled animals are moot. These restrictions, he claims, were merely a temporary measure meant to facilitate interaction among the earliest Jewish and gentile believers in Christ.

1 All translations in this article are by the author, prepared in consultation with the latest scholarly editions and translations. Religions 20182018,, 99,, xx FORFOR PEERPEER REVIEWREVIEW 33 of 1313

Religions 2018, 9, 44 3 of 13 Christ. Augustine adds that Christians have long since and for good reason ceased worrying about eating the meat of birds and rabbits whose blood was not drained. ‘If perhaps there are a few who stillAugustinestill fearfear toto addstouchtouch that thesethese Christians things,things, theythey have areare long laughedlaughed since and atat byby for thethe good rest.rest. reason ThusThus thatthat ceased statementstatement worrying ofof truthtruth about— eating“It is not the whatmeat ofenters birds your and mouth rabbits that whose defiles blood you, was but not rather drained. what ‘If comes perhaps out there of it” are (Matt. a few 15.11) who— stillhas fear hold to overtouch all these minds things, in this they matter: are laughed [Christ] at condemns by the rest. the Thus nature that of statement no food that of truth—“It human society is not whataccepts enters but ratheryourrather mouth the the sins sins that defiles that that iniquity iniquity you, but commits’ commits’ rather what ( (Contra comes Faustumout of it” (Matt.32.13, 15.11)—has((Augustine hold 1891 over,, pp. all 771 minds–73)) in).). Herethis matter: again, Augustine [Christ] condemns interprets the the nature New ofTestament no food that as safegu humanarding society against accepts offensive but rather defilement the sins alone.that iniquity Christianity, commits’ in short, (Contra reckons Faustum no 32.13,foods (pollutedAugustine or 1891impure;, pp. the 771–73)). teachings Here of again,Christ, Augustine Paul, and thetheinterprets apostles apostles the are are New thoroughly thoroughly Testament consistent; consistent;as safeguarding Manichean Manichean against charges chargesoffensive against against defilement Christians Christians alone. Christianity, and and their their Bible Bible in short, are are baseless;reckons noand foods the ve pollutedryry inabilityinability or impure; ofof ManicheansManicheans the teachings toto interpretinterpret of Christ, scripturescripture Paul, and properlyproperly the apostles furtherfurther are demonstratesdemonstrates thoroughly theirtheirconsistent; willfulwillful Manichean folly.folly. charges against Christians and their Bible are baseless; and the very inability of ManicheansAugustine’s to interpret interpretation scripture of properly the Apostolic further Decree’s demonstrates references their to willful blood folly. and strangled meat, however,Augustine’s is illogical. interpretation The bishop ofdoes the not, Apostolic after all, Decree’s regard referencesthethe Decree’sDecree’s to prohibitionsprohibitions blood and strangled againstagainst eatingeating meat, foodfoodhowever, offeredoffered is illogical. toto idolsidols oror The engagingengaging bishop doesinin illicitillicit not, sexualsexual after all,activityactivity regard asas thetemporarytemporary Decree’s injunctions.injunctions. prohibitions TheseThese against forbiddenforbidden eating actsfood remain offered deeply to idols defiling or engaging offenses, in illicit and sexual the Apostolic activity as Decree temporary makes injunctions. no distinction These among forbidden its variousacts remain prohibitio deeplyns. defiling Augustine’s offenses, reading and the of Apostolic the Apostolic Decree Decree makes would no distinction also have among shocked its bishops various inprohibitions.in thethe EasternEastern Augustine’sRomanRoman Empire:Empire: reading theythey sawsaw of the nono Apostolic conflictconflict betweenbetween Decree Christ’sChrist’s would also teachingsteachings have shocked andand thethe Decree’sDecree’s bishops bloodblood in the taboos,taboos,Eastern whichwhich Roman retainedretained Empire: theirtheir they sawforceforce no inin conflict thethe variousvarious between nonnon Christ’s--Latin Churches teachings through and theout Decree’s the Middle blood taboos, Ages. Augustine’swhich retained predecessors their force inin the the various Latin West non-Latin also understood Churches throughout the Decree the as Middle forbidding Ages. Christians Augustine’s in allpredecessors eras from consuming in the Latin blood West ( alsoFreidenreich understood 2011a the,, p. Decree 95,, n. as 28, forbidding p. 104,, n. 5 Christians).). in all eras from consumingAugustine’s blood unprecedented (Freidenreich 2011a interpretation, p. 95, n. of 28, the p. Apostolic 104, n. 5). Decree, inspired by his need to refute ManicheanAugustine’s arguments, unprecedented became interpretation normative within of the ApostolicLatin Christendom Decree, inspired and continuesby his need to to shape refute Catholic,Manichean Protestant, arguments, and became some normative academic within understandings Latin Christendom of this and biblical continues text. to The shape widespread Catholic, acceptanceProtestant, of and Augustine’s some academic interpretat understandingsionion maymay stemstem of inin this partpart biblical fromfrom culturalcultural text. The dynamicsdynamics widespread withinwithin acceptance thethe WesternWestern of MediterreanAugustine’s interpretationregion, where mayit seems stem that in part blood from was cultural already dynamics an accepted within part the of Westernthe Christian Mediterrean diet at thetheregion, turnturn where ofof thethe itfifthfifth seems century.century. that blood Augustine’sAugustine’s was already personalpersonal an accepted authorityauthority part surelysurely of the helped,helped, Christian asas diddid diet thethe at neatnneatn the turness of of the the linelinefifth hehe century. drewdrew between Augustine’sbetween CatholicCatholic personal andandauthority ManicheanManichean surely foodfood helped, practices.practices. as did FromFrom the anan neatness exegeticalexegetical of the andand line normativenormative he drew perspective,between Catholic of course, and what Manichean makes foodAugustine’s practices. against From--thethe an-- exegeticalgrain reading and of normative Acts so persuasive perspective, is his of usecourse, of another what makes passage Augustine’s from scripture against-the-grain—thethe words words reading ofof Christ, of Acts no soless persuasive—as a prooftext is his use to ofclinch another his argument.passage from One scripture—the could easily wordsconclude, of Christ, as many no less—ashave done a prooftext over the to centuries, clinch his that argument. Augustine One offers could noeasily innovation conclude, at asall. many have done over the centuries, that Augustine offers no innovation at all.

2.2. Jewish Jewish and and Christian Christian Foods Foods are are Impure!

ʿʿAlīī¯ı b. al al---ḤH.usayn,usayn, a a leading leading Im Imāam¯mīī¯ı Shi Shiʿʿiii juristjurist known known as as al al-Sharal--Sharī¯ıfīff al al-Murtaal--Murtaḍd.āa¯ (d. 1044), 1044), surely surely nevernever heard of Augustine of Hippo. He He too, too, however, however, engaged engaged in in the the Augustinian Augustinian project project that that Paula Paula FredriksenFredriksen aptly aptly describes as as ‘scriptural reclamation’ reclamation’ (( FredriksenFredriksen 19961996,,, p p... 44 44),),), inin in thisthis casecase aa contes contestcontestt with Sunni authorities over the proper meaning of the Qur ʾʾan. Among the many statements whose distinctlydistinctly Shi Shiʿʿii interpretationinterpretation alal al-Murta--Murtaḍd.āa¯ defends defends in in his his IntiIntiṣṣs.āar¯rr is,is,is, ‘the‘the foodfood ofof thosethose whowho werewere given given thethe Book Book is is permitted permitted to to you’ you’ (Q.(Q. 5.5).5.5). Al Al-MurtaAl--Murtaḍd.āa¯ addre addressesssessses thisthis verse verse about about Jewish Jewish and and Christian Christian foodfood in in in two two two separate separate separate contexts; contexts; contexts; in both in in both both cases cases cases al-Murta al al--Murtad. a,¯ likeḍā Augustine,,, like like Augustine, Augustine, draws on draws draws scriptural on on scripturalprooftexts scriptural prooftextsto demonstrate to demonstrate that the true that meaning the true of meaning the contested of the verse contested is not verse as it appears.is not as it appears. SunnisSunnis consistently consistently interpr interpretet Qur ʾʾan 5.5 as permitting Muslims to consume the meat of animals slaughteredslaughtered byby JewsJews andand Christians,Christians, anan interpretationinterpretation supportedsupported byby thethe factfact thatthat thethe previousprevious versesverses alsoalso address permitted and forbidden meat ( Freidenreich 2011a,, pp. 138 138–56).–56). Over Over the the cou courserserse ofof the the ninthninth through eleventheleventh centuriescenturies C.E., C.E., however, however, Shi Shiiʿʿi authoritiesi authoritiesauthorities increasingly increasinglyincreasingly challenged challengedchallenged the thethe validity validityvalidity of ofslaughter slaughter performed performed by non-Muslims by non--Muslims (Freidenreich (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 2011a 158–62;,, pp. 2011b 158–,62; pp. 58–69).2011b,, Al-Murtapp. 58–69).d. a,¯ Aldrawing--Murta onḍā, earlierdrawing Shi oni arguments, earlier Shiʿʿ assertsii arguments, that verse asserts 5.5 that cannot verse refer 5.5 to cannot meat becauserefer to meat elsewhere because the elsewhereQur an declares the Qur ‘Doʾʾan not declares eat [meat] ‘‘Do not from eat that [meat] over from which that the over name which of the God name has notof God been has mentioned’ not been mentioned(Q. 6.121). Jewish’’ (Q.(Q. 6.121). 6.121). and Christian Jewish Jewish and and butchers, Christian Christian al-Murta butchers, butchers,d. a¯ claims, al al--Murta do notḍā typically claims, do invoke not typicallyGod’s name, invoke and God’swhen theyname, do and ‘they when actually they do invoke ‘they otheractually than invoke God, other exalted than be God, He, because exalted be they He, do because not know they God do noton accountknow God of their on account unbelief of (kufr their)’ ( al-Murtadunbelief (.kufra¯ 1985)’)’ (al(al, p.--Murta 189).ḍ Ifā Jews 1985 and,, p. 189 Christians).). IfIf JewsJews truly andand understood ChristiansChristians trulytrulyGod, understoodunderstood after all, they God,God, would afterafter follow all,all, theythey the wouldwould divine followfollow teachings thethe divine revealed teachings by Muh. revealedammad and by Mu hisḥ descendants,ammad and

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13 Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13 Christ. Augustine adds that Christians have long since and for good reason ceased worrying about eating the meat of birds and rabbits whose blood was not drained. ‘If perhapsChrist. there Augustine are a few adds who that Christians have long since and for good reason ceased worrying about still fear to touch these things, they are laughed at by the rest. Thus that statementeating of the truth meat—“It of is birds not and rabbits whose blood was not drained. ‘If perhaps there are a few who what enters your mouth that defiles you, but rather what comes out of it” still(Matt. fear 15.11) to touch—has these hold things, they are laughed at by the rest. Thus that statement of truth—“It is not over all minds in this matter: [Christ] condemns the nature of no food that humanwhat societyenters acceptsyour mouth but that defiles you, but rather what comes out of it” (Matt. 15.11)—has hold rather the sins that iniquity commits’ (Contra Faustum 32.13, (Augustineover 1891 all minds, pp. in771 this–73 matter:)). [Christ] condemns the nature of no food that human society accepts but Here again, Augustine interprets the New Testament as safeguarding againstrather offensive the sins defilement that iniquity commits’ (Contra Faustum 32.13, (Augustine 1891, pp. 771–73)). alone. Christianity, in short, reckons no foods polluted or impure; the teachingsHere of again, Christ, Augustine Paul, and interprets the New Testament as safeguarding against offensive defilement the apostles are thoroughly consistent; Manichean charges against Christiansalone. and Christianity, their Bible in are short, reckons no foods polluted or impure; the teachings of Christ, Paul, and baseless; and the very inability of Manicheans to interpret scripture properlythe further apostles demonstrates are thoroughly consistent; Manichean charges against Christians and their Bible are their willful folly. baseless; and the very inability of Manicheans to interpret scripture properly further demonstrates Augustine’s interpretation of the Apostolic Decree’s references to bloodtheir and willful strangled folly. meat, however, is illogical. The bishop does not, after all, regard the Decree’s prohibitionsAugustine’s against eatinginterpretation of the Apostolic Decree’s references to blood and strangled meat, food offered to idols or engaging in illicit sexual activity as temporary injunctions.however, These is illogical. forbidden The bishop does not, after all, regard the Decree’s prohibitions against eating acts remain deeply defiling offenses, and the Apostolic Decree makes nofood distinction offered to among idols or its engaging in illicit sexual activity as temporary injunctions. These forbidden various prohibitions. Augustine’s reading of the Apostolic Decree would alsoacts have remain shocked deeply bishops defiling offenses, and the Apostolic Decree makes no distinction among its in the Eastern Roman Empire: they saw no conflict between Christ’s teachingsvarious and the prohibitio Decree’s bloodns. Augustine’s reading of the Apostolic Decree would also have shocked bishops taboos, which retained their force in the various non-Latin Churches throughin outthe Easternthe Middle Roman Ages. Empire: they saw no conflict between Christ’s teachings and the Decree’s blood Augustine’s predecessors in the Latin West also understood the Decree as forbiddingtaboos, which Christians retained in their force in the various non-Latin Churches throughout the Middle Ages. all eras from consuming blood (Freidenreich 2011a, p. 95, n. 28, p. 104, n. 5). Augustine’s predecessors in the Latin West also understood the Decree as forbidding Christians in Augustine’s unprecedented interpretation of the Apostolic Decree, inspiredall eras by his from need consuming to refute blood (Freidenreich 2011a, p. 95, n. 28, p. 104, n. 5). Manichean arguments, became normative within Latin Christendom and continuesAugustine’s to unprecedented shape interpretation of the Apostolic Decree, inspired by his need to refute Catholic, Protestant, and some academic understandings of this biblicalManichean text. The widespread arguments, became normative within Latin Christendom and continues to shape acceptance of Augustine’s interpretation may stem in part from cultural dynamicsCatholic, within Protestant, the Western and some academic understandings of this biblical text. The widespread Mediterrean region, where it seems that blood was already an accepted partacceptance of the Christian of Augustine’s diet at interpretation may stem in part from cultural dynamics within the Western the turn of the fifth century. Augustine’s personal authority surely helped, asMediterrean did the neatn region,ess of thewhere it seems that blood was already an accepted part of the Christian diet at line he drew between Catholic and Manichean food practices. From an exegeticalthe turn ofand the normative fifth century. Augustine’s personal authority surely helped, as did the neatness of the perspective, of course, what makes Augustine’s against-the-grain reading of Actsline heso persuasivedrew between is his Catholic and Manichean food practices. From an exegetical and normative use of another passage from scripture—the words of Christ, no less—as aperspective, prooftext to of clinch course, his what makes Augustine’s against-the-grain reading of Acts so persuasive is his argument. One could easily conclude, as many have done over the centuries,use that of Augustineanother passage offers from scripture—the words of Christ, no less—as a prooftext to clinch his no innovation at all. argument. One could easily conclude, as many have done over the centuries, that Augustine offers no innovation at all. 2. Jewish and Christian Foods are Impure!Religions 2018, 9, 44 4 of 13 2. Jewish and Christian Foods are Impure! ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, a leading Imāmī Shiʿi jurist known as al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 1044), surely never heard of Augustine of Hippo. Hethe too, Imams however, whose engaged authority in the underpins Augustinian ShiʿAlism. projectī b. The al that-ḤIntisusayn, Paula.ar¯ ’s argumenta leading alsoImām containsī Shiʿi jurist a barely known implicit as al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 1044), surely Fredriksen aptly describes as ‘scripturalcritique reclamation’ of Sunnis, (Fredriksen whom al-Murta 1996, p.d .44a¯never chastises), in this heard case as of ‘perplexed’ aAugustine contest (al-Murta of Hippo.d. a ¯He 1985 too,, p. however, 188): if they engaged truly in the Augustinian project that Paula with Sunni authorities over the proper understoodmeaning of the Qur ʾanan. andAmong gave the proper manyFredriksen respect statements aptly to the whosedescribes teachings as of ‘scriptural the Imams, reclamation’ they too would (Fredriksen not 1996, p. 44), in this case a contest distinctly Shiʿi interpretation al-Murtaḍallowā defends Muslims in his to Inti consumeṣār is, ‘the meat food prepared ofwith those Sunni by who Jewish authorities were and given Christian over the butchers. proper meaning of the Qurʾan. Among the many statements whose the Book is permitted to you’ (Q. 5.5). Al-MurtaAl-Murtaḍā addred. a¯ alsosses defendsthis verse an about evendistinctly Jewish broader andShi claimʿ iChristian interpretation against Sunni al- critiques:Murtaḍā defends ‘all food in touched his Intiṣā byr is, ‘the food of those who were given food in two separate contexts; in bothan unbeliever—a cases al-Murta Jew,ḍā, like a Christian, Augustine, ortheanyone draws Book elseis on permitted scripturalwhose unbelief to you’ ((Q.kufr 5.5).) has Al been-Murta establishedḍā addresses with this verse about Jewish and Christian prooftexts to demonstrate that the true clearmeaning evidence—is of the contested prohibited’ verse is (al-Murta not foodas itd .appears.a¯ in 1985 two, p. separate 193). This contexts; prohibition, in both attested cases al in-Murta traditionsḍā, like Augustine, draws on scriptural Sunnis consistently interpret Qurʾanascribed 5.5 as permitting to various ShiMuslimsi Imams, to consume is logicallyprooftexts the problematic: meat to demonstrateof animals according that tothe Islamic true meaning law, the of circumstantial the contested verse is not as it appears. slaughtered by Jews and Christians, an impurityinterpretation that affectssupported humans by the is fact not that communicable theSunnis previous consistently to verses foodstuffs interpr oret anything Qurʾan 5.5 else as (permittingMaghen 1999 Muslims). to consume the meat of animals also address permitted and forbidden meatEven (Freidenreich al-Murtad. a’s¯ 2011a teacher,, pp. Mu 138h. ammad–56).slaughtered Over b. Muthe hcou. ammmad byrse Jews of theand al-Muf Christians,¯ıd (d. 1022), an interpretation implicitly rejects supported the by the fact that the previous verses ninth through eleventh centuries C.E., however,notion that Shi non-Muslimsʿi authorities increasingly bear a communicablealso challenged address form the permitted validity of impurity. and forbidden Al-Muf¯ıd meat explains (Freidenreich that Qur an 2011a 5.5 , pp. 138–56). Over the course of the of slaughter performed by non-Muslimsrefers ( notFreidenreich to meat but 2011a rather, topp. foods 158– likeninth62; grains, 2011b through, bread, pp. eleventh 58 and–69). dairy centuries products, C.E., even however, though Shi theʿi moistnessauthorities increasingly challenged the validity Al-Murtaḍā, drawing on earlier Shiʿi arguments,of dough andasserts milk that renders verse these 5.5 cannot foodstuffsof refer slaughter susceptible to meat performed because to becoming by non polluted-Muslims through (Freidenreich contact with 2011a a , pp. 158–62; 2011b, pp. 58–69). elsewhere the Qurʾan declares ‘Do not eatcommunicable [meat] from sourcethat over of which impurity. the Al-MufnameAl-Murta of¯ıd God doesḍā, has expressdrawing not been concern on earlier about Shi theʿi arguments, impurity of asserts non-Muslim that verse 5.5 cannot refer to meat because mentioned’ (Q. 6.121). Jewish and Christianfoodstuffs, butchers, but only al-Murta becauseḍā theyclaims, might doelsewhere come not typically in the contact Qur invʾ withanoke declares intrinsically ‘Do not impure eat [meat] foods from like porkthat over and which the name of God has not been God’s name, and when they do ‘they actuallywine, notinvoke because other non-Muslims than God, exalted touchedmentioned be themHe, because (Freidenreich’ (Q. they 6.121). do 2011b Jewish, pp. and 69–75). Christian butchers, al-Murtaḍā claims, do not typically invoke not know God on account of their unbelief Al-Murta(kufr)’ (al-d.Murtaa,¯ however,ḍā 1985 makes, p. 189 an).God’s If argument Jews name, and and thatChristians when never they occurred do ‘they to actually his teacher invoke or anyother other than God, exalted be He, because they do truly understood God, after all, they wouldShi ifollow authority. the divine Citing teachings the Qur anic revealed dictum,not byknow Mu ‘truly, Godḥammad the on polytheists account and of aretheir impure’ unbelief (Q. (kufr 9.28),)’ (al al-Murta-Murtadḍ. aā¯ 1985, p. 189). If Jews and Christians contends that all non-Muslims suffertruly a communicable understood God, form after of intrinsic all, they impurity would follow (najasa¯ the) unrelated divine teachings revealed by Muḥammad and

to the circumstantial impurity (hadath) that sometimes afﬂicts Muslims (al-Murtada¯ 1985, p. 11).2 . . Non-Muslims are impure for the same reason that their invocations of God are invalid: they embrace false beliefs (kufr). As for those Sunnis who object that Qur an 5.5 permits food touched by Jews and Christians, al-Murtad. a¯ explains that this verse cannot refer to all Jewish and Christian foods—after all, the Qur an surely does not permit consumption of their impure wine and pork. The verse must refer solely to pure foods such as grains; foodstuffs that remain dry and in their natural state are not susceptible to becoming polluted. Al-Murtad. a¯ transforms a broadly permissive Qur anic statement about the food of Jews and Christians into one that hardly permits anything at all: only ‘grains and the like’ (al-Murtad. a¯ 1985, p. 11). Imam¯ ¯ı and Zayd¯ı Shi is uniformly accepted his unprecedented understanding of Jewish and Christian impurity, to the point that academic scholars of Shi ism mistakenly presumed that Shi is had always held these beliefs about non-Muslims (Freidenreich 2011b, pp. 54–55). What makes al-Murtad. a’s¯ against-the-grain (or, in this case, against-everything-but-the-grain) interpretation so compelling as an act of scriptural exegesis is the way in which it reframes earlier authoritative statements in a wholly original manner. The linchpin to al-Murtad. a’s¯ argument about Qur an 5.5, of course, is his reading of verse 9.28. To the best of my knowledge, no earlier authority interprets this verse about polytheists as evidence for the impurity of Jews and Christians, let alone their foodstuffs (Freidenreich 2011b, pp. 76–77). Al-Murtad. a¯ also draws upon earlier Shi i authorities, including traditions ascribed to various Imams, in his reference to ‘grains and the like’. These authorities, like al-Muf¯ıd, often use grain as an example of a non-meat foodstuff that Qur an 5.5 permits. Al-Murtad. a,¯ however, redeploys this traditional example as a reference to foods that cannot contract impurity. He strategically overlooks the fact that his predecessors allow the consumption of Jewish and Christian foods susceptible to becoming polluted (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 164–65), much as Augustine conveniently ignores his predecessors’ uniform insistence that Christians may not consume blood.

2 Al-Murtad. a¯ implies that Muslims ‘whose unbelief has been established with clear evidence’, most likely an allusion to Sunnis actively hostile to the Shi i minority, also suffer from intrinsic impurity; see (Kohlberg 1985). Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

Christ. Augustine adds that Christians have long since and for good reason ceased worrying about eating the meat of birds and rabbits whose blood was not drained. ‘If perhaps there are a few who still fear to touch these things, they are laughed at by the rest. Thus that statement of truth—“It is not what enters your mouth that defiles you, but rather what comes out of it” (Matt. 15.11)—has hold over all minds in this matter: [Christ] condemns the nature of no food that human society accepts but rather the sins that iniquity commits’ (Contra Faustum 32.13, (Augustine 1891, pp. 771–73)). Here again, Augustine interprets the New Testament as safeguarding against offensive defilement alone. Christianity, in short, reckons no foods polluted or impure; the teachings of Christ, Paul, and the apostles are thoroughly consistent; Manichean charges against Christians and their Bible are baseless; and the very inability of Manicheans to interpret scripture properly further demonstrates their willful folly. Augustine’s interpretation of the Apostolic Decree’s references to blood and strangled meat, however, is illogical. The bishop does not, after all, regard the Decree’s prohibitions against eating food offered to idols or engaging in illicit sexual activity as temporary injunctions. These forbidden acts remain deeply defiling offenses, and the Apostolic Decree makes no distinction among its various prohibitions. Augustine’s reading of the Apostolic Decree would also have shocked bishops in the Eastern Roman Empire: they saw no conflict between Christ’s teachings and the Decree’s blood taboos, which retained their force in the various non-Latin Churches throughout the Middle Ages. Augustine’s predecessors in the Latin West also understood the Decree as forbidding Christians in all eras from consuming blood (Freidenreich 2011a, p. 95, n. 28, p. 104, n. 5). Augustine’s unprecedented interpretation of the Apostolic Decree, inspired by his need to refute Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13 Manichean arguments, became normative within Latin Christendom and continues to shape Catholic, Protestant, and some academic understandings of this biblical text. The widespread Christ. Augustine adds that Christians have long since and for good reason ceased worrying about acceptance of Augustine’s interpretation may stem in part from cultural dynamics within the Western eating the meat of birds and rabbits whose blood was not drained. ‘If perhaps there are a few who Mediterrean region, where it seems that blood was already an accepted part of the Christian diet at still fear to touch these things, they are laughed at by the rest. Thus that statement of truth—“It is not the turn of the fifth century. Augustine’s personal authority surely helped, as did the neatness of the what enters your mouth that defiles you, but rather what comes out of it” (Matt. 15.11)—has hold line he drew between Catholic and Manichean food practices. From an exegetical and normative over all minds in this matter: [Christ] condemns theReligions nature 2018of no, 9, food 44 that human society accepts but perspective, of5 of course, 13 what makes Augustine’s against-the-grain reading of Acts so persuasive is his rather the sins that iniquity commits’ (Contra Faustum 32.13, (Augustine 1891, pp. 771–73)). use of another passage from scripture—the words of Christ, no less—as a prooftext to clinch his Here again, Augustine interprets the New Testament as safeguarding against offensive defilement argument. One could easily conclude, as many have done over the centuries, that Augustine offers alone. Christianity, in short, reckons no foods polluted3. How or impure; Scripture the Evolves teachings of Christ, Paul, and no innovation at all. the apostles are thoroughly consistent; Manichean charges against Christians and their Bible are Augustine and al-Murtad. a¯ are not the only religious authorities who seek to reconcile their own 2. Jewish and Christian Foods are Impure! baseless; and the very inability of Manicheans to interpretnorms regarding scripture food properly practices further with demonstrates scriptural texts whose evident meaning contradicts those norms. their willful folly. To cite briefly only one additional example (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 60–62), Rabbi ShimʿAlonī barb. al Yo-Ḥh.usayn,ai a leading Imāmī Shiʿi jurist known as al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 1044), surely Augustine’s interpretation of the Apostolic Decree’s(fl. mid-2nd references c.) reportedly to blood offeredand strangled a rather meat, unexpected interpretation of God’s instructionnever heard that of theAugustine of Hippo. He too, however, engaged in the Augustinian project that Paula however, is illogical. The bishop does not, after all,Israelites regard the offer Decree’s to compensate prohibitions the inhabitants against eating of Seir for the food they would consumeFredriksen while traveling aptly describes as ‘scriptural reclamation’ (Fredriksen 1996, p. 44), in this case a contest food offered to idols or engaging in illicit sexual activitythrough as thattemporary territory injunctions. en route to These the Promised forbidden Land. ‘“What food you eat you shallwith obtain Sunni from authorities them over the proper meaning of the Qurʾan. Among the many statements whose acts remain deeply defiling offenses, and the Apostolicfor money; Decree similarly makes the no water distinction you drink among you its shall procure for money” (Deut. 2.6)—justdistinctly asShi waterʿi interpretation al-Murtaḍā defends in his Intiṣār is, ‘the food of those who were given various prohibitions. Augustine’s reading of the Apostolichas not beenDecree changed would fromalso have its natural shocked state, bishops so too [eat only] food that has not beenthe changed Book is from permitted its to you’ (Q. 5.5). Al-Murtaḍā addresses this verse about Jewish and Christian in the Eastern Roman Empire: they saw no conflict between Christ’s teachings and the Decree’s blood natural state’ (Talmud Yerushalmi, Shabbat 1.4, 3c). Like al-Murtad. a,¯ Shim on bar Yofoodh. ai regards in two grains separate contexts; in both cases al-Murtaḍā, like Augustine, draws on scriptural taboos, which retained their force in the various nonas- permissibleLatin Churches and breadthrough asout forbidden, the Middle albeit Ages. for reasons that have nothing to do withprooftexts the purity to status demonstrate that the true meaning of the contested verse is not as it appears. Augustine’s predecessors in the Latin West also understoodof these foodstuffs. the Decree as forbidding Christians in Sunnis consistently interpret Qurʾan 5.5 as permitting Muslims to consume the meat of animals all eras from consuming blood (Freidenreich 2011a, p. 95The, n. 28, presence p. 104, of n.against-(everything-but-)the-grain 5). interpretations within theslaughtered Jewish, Christian, by Jews and Christians, an interpretation supported by the fact that the previous verses Augustine’s unprecedented interpretation of theand Apostolic Islamic Decree, traditions inspired alike by provides his need to further refute support for Wilfred Cantwell Smith’salso address argument permitted and forbidden meat (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 138–56). Over the course of the Manichean arguments, became normative within(Smith Latin 1993 Christendom) that the common and continues denominator to shape uniting all members of the literary genreninth we callthrough scripture eleventh centuries C.E., however, Shiʿi authorities increasingly challenged the validity Catholic, Protestant, and some academic understandingsis the dialectical of this nature biblical of the text. relationship The widespread between the text and its community of interpreters.of slaughter As in performed any by non-Muslims (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 158–62; 2011b, pp. 58–69). acceptance of Augustine’s interpretation may stem intrue part relationship, from cultural influence dynamics is mutual: within the the Western text shapes the ideas of its interpreters whileAl- theMurta interpretersḍā, drawing on earlier Shiʿi arguments, asserts that verse 5.5 cannot refer to meat because Mediterrean region, where it seems that blood wasin already turn shape an accepted the meaning part of of the the Christian text. Key todiet this at evolutionary process, however, iselsewhere the insistence the Qur thatʾan declares ‘Do not eat [meat] from that over which the name of God has not been the turn of the fifth century. Augustine’s personal authorityno change surely has taken helped, place as did at all. the Religious neatness authorities,of the as we have seen, support thatmentioned claim by’ (Q. using 6.121). Jewish and Christian butchers, al-Murtaḍā claims, do not typically invoke line he drew between Catholic and Manichean foodscripture practices. itself From to justify an exegetical their unprecedented and normative interpretations. God’s name, and when they do ‘they actually invoke other than God, exalted be He, because they do perspective, of course, what makes Augustine’s against-the-grain reading of Acts so persuasive is his Augustine and al-Murtad. a¯ radically redefine the meaning and normative implicationsnot know of scriptural God on account of their unbelief (kufr)’ (al-Murtaḍā 1985, p. 189). If Jews and Christians use of another passage from scripture—the wordsstatements of Christ, about no less food.—as Of a broader prooftext significance, to clinch his these exegetes do so by the same means.truly Theunderstood elements God, after all, they would follow the divine teachings revealed by Muḥammad and argument. One could easily conclude, as many haveof done their interpretiveover the centuries, technique, that moreover,Augustine are offers common not only among Christians and Muslims but no innovation at all. also among Jews and, I suspect, members of unrelated scriptural traditions as well. Augustine and al-Murtada¯ both begin from a culturally conditioned premise that scripture cannot mean what it 2. Jewish and Christian Foods are Impure! . appears to mean; because they are writing polemics against rival interpreters, both also have a strong ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, a leading Imāmī Shiʿi juristmotive known for as demonstratingal-Sharīf al-Murta thatḍā scripture (d. 1044), in surely fact does not mean this. The Apostolic Decree could not never heard of Augustine of Hippo. He too, however,possibly engaged establish in the aAugustinian permanent prohibitionproject that againstPaula consuming bloody foods because Christians in the Fredriksen aptly describes as ‘scriptural reclamation’Latin (Fredriksen West eat such1996, foodsp. 44), and in this because case Paula contes declarest all things to be pure (take that, Manicheans!). with Sunni authorities over the proper meaning of Thethe Qur ʾanan. couldAmong not the possibly many statements permit all, orwhose even most, Jewish and Christian foodstuffs because we distinctly Shiʿi interpretation al-Murtaḍā defends inknow his Inti onṣ theār is, authority ‘the food of of Shi thosei Imams who that were these given non-Muslims and their foodstuffs are impure (take that, the Book is permitted to you’ (Q. 5.5). Al-Murtaḍā Sunnis!).addresses Both this exegetes verse about appeal Jewish to commonly and Christian held knowledge within their respective communities—no food in two separate contexts; in both cases al-(Latin)Murtaḍ Christianā, like Augustine, worries about draws eating on the scriptural meat of strangled birds, (Shi i) authorities interpret Qur an prooftexts to demonstrate that the true meaning of the5.5 ascontested permitting verse grains—and is not as it bothappears. clinch their argument by means of a prooftext found elsewhere in Sunnis consistently interpret Qurʾan 5.5 as permittingscripture Muslims (Matt. 15.11, to consume Q. 9.28). the The meat end of result animals is the reconciliation of scripture with the community’s slaughtered by Jews and Christians, an interpretationevolving supported presumptions, by the fact values,that the andprevious practices, verses as well as the ‘reclamation’ of a contested text from also address permitted and forbidden meat (Freidenreich‘heretics’ 2011a who, pp. offer 138 a–56). contrary Over interpretation.the course of the The interpretation of Deuteronomy 2.6 ascribed to ninth through eleventh centuries C.E., however, ShiShimʿi authoritieson bar Yo increasinglyh. ai similarly challenged seeks to clinch the validity an internal rabbinic argument regarding the permissibility of slaughter performed by non-Muslims (Freidenreichof gentile 2011a foodstuffs,, pp. 158 although–62; 2011b in that, pp. case 58 the–69). contested scriptural statement comes from the Oral Al-Murtaḍā, drawing on earlier Shiʿi arguments, assertsTorah, that not verse the Hebrew 5.5 cannot Bible. refer to meat because elsewhere the Qurʾan declares ‘Do not eat [meat] from thatWe over can which more clearly the name appreciate of God has the not dynamics been that underpin the exegetical work of Augustine mentioned’ (Q. 6.121). Jewish and Christian butchers,and al-Murtaal-Murtadḍ. āa,¯ claims, as well do as not those typically that make invoke their radical interpretations normative within Latin God’s name, and when they do ‘they actually invokeChristendom other than God, and Shiexaltedi Islam, be He, through because the they application do of Peter Berger’s theory of ‘world-construction’ not know God on account of their unbelief (kufr)’ (al(Berger-Murta 1967ḍā ,1985 pp. 3–19)., p. 189 Berger). If Jews accounts and Christians for the seemingly contradictory fact ‘that society is the product truly understood God, after all, they would follow theof mandivine and teachings that man revealed is the product by Muḥ ofammad society’ and (p. 3) by distinguishing among three moments in a dialectical process. These moments include the internalization of prior norms through education and

enculturation, the externalization—i.e., reproduction—of those norms in sometimes modiﬁed form by enculturated community members, and the objectivation of these reproduced social norms as cultural givens powerful enough to shape the thought and behavior of future generations. Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13 acts remain deeply defiling offenses, and the Apostolic Decree makes no distinction among its various prohibitions. Augustine’s reading of the Apostolic Decree would also have shocked bishops Christ. Augustine adds that Christians have long since and for good reason ceased worrying about in the Eastern Roman Empire: they saw no conflict between Christ’s teachings and the Decree’s blood eating the meat of birds and rabbits whose blood was not drained. ‘If perhaps there are a few who taboos, which retained their force in the various non-Latin Churches throughout the Middle Ages. still fear to touch these things, they are laughed at by the rest. Thus that statement of truth—“It is not Augustine’s predecessors in the Latin West also understood the Decree as forbidding Christians in what enters your mouth that defiles you, but rather what comes out of it” (Matt. 15.11)—has hold all eras from consuming blood (Freidenreich 2011a, p. 95, n. 28, p. 104, n. 5). over all minds in this matter: [Christ] condemns the nature of no food that human society accepts but Augustine’s unprecedented interpretation of the Apostolic Decree, inspired by his need to refute rather the sins that iniquity commits’ (Contra Faustum 32.13, (Augustine 1891, pp. 771–73)). Manichean arguments, became normative within Latin Christendom and continues to shape Here again, Augustine interprets the New Testament as safeguarding against offensive defilement Catholic, Protestant, and some academic understandings of this biblical text. The widespread Religions 2018, 9, 44 6 of 13 alone. Christianity, in short, reckons no foods polluted or impure; the teachings of Christ, Paul, and acceptance of Augustine’s interpretation may stem in part from cultural dynamics within the Western the apostles are thoroughly consistent; Manichean charges against Christians and their Bible are Mediterrean region, where it seems that blood was already an accepted part of the Christian diet at the turn of the fifth century. Augustine’s personal authority surely helped, as did the neatness of the baseless; and the very inability of Manicheans to interpret scriptureAugustine properly and al-Murta furtherd. a¯demonstrates internalized not only the authority of scripture but also the cultural their willful folly. givens of their own communities, including communal ideas about food practices and about adherentsline he drew between Catholic and Manichean food practices. From an exegetical and normative Augustine’s interpretation of the Apostolic Decree’sof foreignreferences religions. to blood Thanks and strangled both to their meat, personal authority and to the fact that their externalizedperspective, of course, what makes Augustine’s against-the-grain reading of Acts so persuasive is his however, is illogical. The bishop does not, after all, regardinterpretations the Decree’s resolve prohibitions inconsistencies against betweeneating scriptural and communal norms, these interpretationsuse of another passage from scripture—the words of Christ, no less—as a prooftext to clinch his food offered to idols or engaging in illicit sexual activitythemselves as temporary become injunctions. objectivated These givens forbidden for subsequent generations. Foreigners and Their Food addressesargument. One could easily conclude, as many have done over the centuries, that Augustine offers acts remain deeply defiling offenses, and the Apostolicnumerous Decree instances makes no in which distinction traditional among texts its and practices, when viewed through internalizedno cultural innovation at all. various prohibitions. Augustine’s reading of the Apostolicparadigms, Decree would take on also new have meanings shocked that, bishops once articulated in normative terms, externalize new ideas 2. Jewish and Christian Foods are Impure! in the Eastern Roman Empire: they saw no conflict betweenabout Christ’s the proper teachings relationship and the between Decree’s Us blood and Them. In some cases, however, these newly externalized taboos, which retained their force in the various non-Latinideas Churches clash with through previouslyout the objectivated Middle Ages. givens within the religious community. This is why ShimʿAlonī b. al-Ḥusayn, a leading Imāmī Shiʿi jurist known as al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 1044), surely Augustine’s predecessors in the Latin West also understoodbar Yo theh. ai’s Decree restrictive as forbidding food norms Christians had far in less of an impact on Rabbinic Judaism than Augustinenever heard of Augustine of Hippo. He too, however, engaged in the Augustinian project that Paula all eras from consuming blood (Freidenreich 2011a, p. 95and, n. al-Murta28, p. 104d., a¯n. had 5). on the food norms of Latin Christendom and Shi i Islam. We can expectFredriksen to ﬁnd aptly describes as ‘scriptural reclamation’ (Fredriksen 1996, p. 44), in this case a contest Augustine’s unprecedented interpretation of the Apostolicsimilar dynamicsDecree, inspired of cultural by his reproduction need to refute and development, along with similar roads not taken,with in Sunni all authorities over the proper meaning of the Qurʾan. Among the many statements whose Manichean arguments, became normative within Latinlongstanding Christendom religious and traditions, continues including to shape those that do not prioritize scriptural exegesis. distinctly Shiʿi interpretation al-Murtaḍā defends in his Intiṣār is, ‘the food of those who were given Catholic, Protestant, and some academic understandings of this biblical text. The widespread the Book is permitted to you’ (Q. 5.5). Al-Murtaḍā addresses this verse about Jewish and Christian acceptance of Augustine’s interpretation may stem in part4. from All Food cultural is Pure, dynamics but Jewish within Food the Western is Impure! food in two separate contexts; in both cases al-Murtaḍā, like Augustine, draws on scriptural Mediterrean region, where it seems that blood was already an accepted part of the Christian diet at Our comparison of the against-the-grain interpretations offered by Augustine and al-Murtaprooftextsd. a¯ to demonstrate that the true meaning of the contested verse is not as it appears. the turn of the fifth century. Augustine’s personal authorityhas thussurely far helped, focused as on did the the motives neatn behindess of the these innovative readings of scriptures, the technique usedSunnis consistently interpret Qurʾan 5.5 as permitting Muslims to consume the meat of animals line he drew between Catholic and Manichean food practices.to disguise From these an innovations, exegetical and and normative the reasons why these readings became normative withinslaughtered Latin by Jews and Christians, an interpretation supported by the fact that the previous verses perspective, of course, what makes Augustine’s against-the-grain reading of Acts so persuasive is his Christendom and Shi i Islam. We will now turn to similarities of a different kind: both al-Murtaalsod. a¯ andaddress permitted and forbidden meat (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 138–56). Over the course of the use of another passage from scripture—the words of AugustineChrist, no formulateless—as a their prooftext arguments to clinch in polemic his against those whom they regard as heretics, andninth both through eleventh centuries C.E., however, Shiʿi authorities increasingly challenged the validity argument. One could easily conclude, as many have doneascribe over impurity the centuries, to religious that Augustine foreigners offers on account of the false beliefs held by those foreigners.of slaughter performed by non-Muslims (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 158–62; 2011b, pp. 58–69). no innovation at all. ḍ ʿ Al-Murtad. a¯ addresses the food of Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, but the addresseesAl-Murta of ā, drawing on earlier Shi i arguments, asserts that verse 5.5 cannot refer to meat because the Intisar¯ are Muslims: fellow Shi is and rival Sunnis. Al-Murtada¯ critiques Sunnis for regardingelsewhere Jews the Qurʾan declares ‘Do not eat [meat] from that over which the name of God has not been 2. Jewish and Christian Foods are Impure! . . and Christians as similar to Muslims in their ability to invoke God properly and in their puritymentioned status. ’ (Q. 6.121). Jewish and Christian butchers, al-Murtaḍā claims, do not typically invoke ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, a leading Imāmī Shiʿi jurist knownMore as fundamentally, al-Sharīf al-Murta he andḍā (d. fellow 1044), Shi surelyi authorities reject the Sunni claim that Jews and ChristiansGod’s are name, and when they do ‘they actually invoke other than God, exalted be He, because they do never heard of Augustine of Hippo. He too, however, engagedlike Muslims in the withAugustinian respect toproject their monotheismthat Paula and their reverence for an authentic divine scripture.not know God on account of their unbelief (kufr)’ (al-Murtaḍā 1985, p. 189). If Jews and Christians ḥ Fredriksen aptly describes as ‘scriptural reclamation’ (FredriksenAl-Murtad. a’s¯1996 ascription, p. 44), in of this intrinsic case impuritya contest to these non-Muslims, along with his assimilationtruly of theunderstood God, after all, they would follow the divine teachings revealed by Mu ammad and with Sunni authorities over the proper meaning of the Qurʾan’san. Among People ofthe Book many with statements its polytheists, whose establishes that Jews and Christians are absolutely unlike distinctly Shiʿi interpretation al-Murtaḍā defends in his MuslimsIntiṣār is, ( Freidenreich‘the food of those 2011a who, p. 163). were given the Book is permitted to you’ (Q. 5.5). Al-Murtaḍā addressesNotice this verse as wellabout that Jewish al-Murta and Christiand. a’s¯ ascription of impurity to these non-Muslims has real food in two separate contexts; in both cases al-Murtaconsequencesḍā, like Augustine, for Muslims. draws Not on only scriptural must Shi is take care not to eat otherwise permissible food prooftexts to demonstrate that the true meaning of the contestedthat Jews verse or Christians is not as touch,it appears. but Sunnis who eat such food make manifest their failure to properly Sunnis consistently interpret Qurʾan 5.5 as permittingunderstand Muslims God’sto consume will. the Al-Murta meat ofd. a’s¯animals rhetoric about the impurity of Jews and Christians seems slaughtered by Jews and Christians, an interpretation supporteddesigned by primarily the fact tothat disparage the previous Sunnis verses and, more importantly, to bolster the faith of Shi is in their also address permitted and forbidden meat (Freidenreichcommunity’s 2011a, pp. 138 distinctive–56). Over understanding the course of of the Islam (Freidenreich 2011b, pp. 79–84). ninth through eleventh centuries C.E., however, Shiʿi authoritiesAugustine’s increasingly rhetoric challenged involves the fewer validity parties, as his ascription of impurity to Manicheans appears of slaughter performed by non-Muslims (Freidenreichin the2011a context, pp. of 158 polemic–62; directed2011b, pp. against 58–69). Manicheans themselves. That charge of impurity, moreover, Al-Murtaḍā, drawing on earlier Shiʿi arguments, assertshas that no verse practical 5.5 cannot consequences refer to meat for anyone: because Augustine does not call on fellow Christians to abstain elsewhere the Qurʾan declares ‘Do not eat [meat] from thatfrom over Manichean which the food name on of account God has of not the been fact that Manicheans regard it as impure. Although the logic mentioned’ (Q. 6.121). Jewish and Christian butchers, of al- Augustine’sMurtaḍā claims, rhetoric do notapplies typically equally inv tooke contemporary Jews—they too insist on literal adherence God’s name, and when they do ‘they actually invoke otherto biblicalthan God, dietary exalted laws be inHe, the because era of they the new do covenant (Contra Faustum 31.4)—Augustine does not not know God on account of their unbelief (kufr)’ (al-Murtapursueḍā the1985 implications, p. 189). If ofJews this and fact. Christians Subsequent authorities within the Latin West, however, do just that. truly understood God, after all, they would follow the divineFamiliarity teachings with revealed the ways by in Mu whichḥammad the Shi andi ascription of impurity to Jews affects Muslims enables us to recognize similar dynamics within medieval Christian discourse about the impurity of Jewish food.

From the late-ﬁfth through mid-seventh centuries, bishops forbade Christians from eating with Jews at no fewer than six church councils held in the regions of Gaul (present-day France). Impurity rhetoric features prominently in many of these prohibitions. The Councils of Vannes and Agde justify their commensality ban on the grounds that Jews ‘judge what we eat with permission of the Apostle to be impure’, and the Councils of Epaone and Mâcon punish Christians who have ‘become deﬁled’ through their participation in meals with Jews (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 114–17). Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

5. Recapitulation Before turning to methodological reﬂection on the preceding comparison of Latin Christian and Shi i Islamic sources, let me restate in brief the take-away messages of this comparison—and, more broadly, of Foreigners and Their Food—that I believe are relevant to scholars of religion who do not specialize in the study of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Religions 2018, 9, 44 8 of 13

1. Religious authorities develop conceptions of foreigners that correspond to and advance the particular self-identities they promote for their own communities. As a result, these conceptions differ from one community to the next, such that the boundaries that religious communities construct around themselves are incongruent. Within all of the communities I study, however, restrictions on the food of foreigners play a significant role in the establishment of these boundaries and the ascription of identities to Us and to Them. Similar dynamics likely pertain within many other religious communities. 2. Impurity rhetoric can also play a crucial role in establishing the proper relationship between Us and Them. Such rhetoric does not merely mark foreigners as out of place but rather actively places select foreigners in an inferior position within the idealized theological and social hierarchy. Scholars of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam alike can better understand impurity rhetoric by distinguishing between circumstantial, offensive, and intrinsic impurity; these distinctions may also be relevant within other religious traditions. 3. The process by which conceptions of religious foreigners pass from one generation to the next can be understood by means of Peter Berger’s theory of world-construction. This dialectical theory also helps to explain how religious authorities introduce changes into these conceptions and why certain innovations are more readily received than others. 4. Religious authorities often engage in scriptural exegesis to make the case that their departures from past precedent are in fact thoroughly traditional. This process typically hinges on the use of one scriptural passage to justify an innovative interpretation of another. The use of exegesis to mask innovation exemplifies and refines Wilfred Cantwell Smith’s understanding of the dialectical relationship between scriptural texts and their interpretive communities.

A ﬁfth core ﬁnding in Foreigners and Their Food is that many religious authorities in each of the traditions I study employ the scholastic mode of thinking (Cabezón 1998, pp. 4–6). The very nature of scholasticism shapes not only the contours of discourse about foreigners and their food but also the outcomes of this normative discourse. The texts we explored above, however, do not exemplify this dynamic.

6. Methodological Analysis: Goals and Modes of Comparison When analyzing comparative studies methodologically, we must distinguish between two fundamentally distinct phases of the research process: the analysis of data and the presentation of findings. Each of these phases entails its own particular goals as well as its own constraints—language facility and word limits, to cite one example from each. Each phase, therefore, requires its own strategy for how to employ comparison most effectively. Although analysis precedes presentation both logically and chronologically from the author’s perspective, the reader only encounters the finished product and therefore evaluates the presentation first and foremost. For that reason, the methodological reflections that follow similarly priortize the role of comparison in the presentation of my research on foreigners and their food, with primary attention to the comparison that I laid out in the first half of this article. I will address in turn each of the elements that Freiberger identifies in the essay this article accompanies. Comparative scholarship, in the strong sense of that term, strategically transgresses conventional boundaries in pursuit of greater knowledge and understanding. To be effective, scholarly comparison cannot ignore or blur the lines that distinguish categories from one another: the act of comparison depends on acknowledging such distinctions. Comparativists do not, however, allow these boundaries to constrain our scholarship. Instead, we intentionally bring together material from diverse categories, complementing the work of specialists whose analyses remain within lines we choose to straddle. Comparison has the potential to shed valuable light on specific data points as well as on the broader class of data to which comparands from diverse categories belong. No less importantly, comparison enables us to better understand the very categories and boundaries that we transgress. Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

Although my analyses of both Latin Christian and Shi i Islamic sources were inspired and informed by familiarity with the other sets of sources, the presentation of insights gleaned through these illuminative comparisons need not entail any act of comparison. This is because in illuminative comparisons ‘the scholarly “action” takes place outside of the inter-religious space of comparison and is embedded ﬁrmly in one religious tradition or the other’ (Freidenreich 2004, p. 91). The merits of my analysis of Latin Christian sources rest solely on my reading of those sources, and for that reason the decision to include or exclude reference to the Shi i sources that informed my interpretation rests on compositional considerations alone. (For an article-length case study in illuminative comparison, see (Freidenreich 2012a).)

7. On Scales and Scopes of Comparison I confess that I do not personally ﬁnd Freiberger’s focus on scales of comparison to be especially valuable. The comparison of Augustine’s Contra Faustum and al-Murtad. a’s¯ al-Intis.ar¯ is clearly micro in scale, but is the scale the collection I assembled of ﬁfth- through ninth-century Latin sources from various locations in present-day France micro or meso? If the latter, why should that designation invalidate the comparison I construct with the Intis.ar¯ ? Also, what scale best describes Foreigners and Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

8. On the Non-Linear Nature of the Comparative Process Freiberger offers a crisp and logically organized account of the methodical operations that constitute core components of the comparative process. Freiberger clearly states, and undoubtedly knows from personal experience, that the application of these operations is not nearly as linear or sequential as it appears in his essay. Lest a reader mistakenly presume otherwise, however, I will illustrate the non-linear nature of comparative scholarship by describing the process that ultimately yielded this article’s case study. Freiberger offers valuable comments regarding the importance and complexity of selection as a core operation of the comparative process; many prior studies of comparative method take this operation for granted (Mack 1996, p. 256). As noted above, the motivations for selecting Augustine’s Contra Faustum and al-Murtad. a’s¯ al-Intis.ar¯ as the comparands in this article’s case study were largely tactical in nature: I determined that the comparison of these works would enable me to illustrate the points I wanted to make without undue repetition of arguments that I have already made elsewhere. My initial discovery that these sources constitute mutually illuminating comparands, however, was serendipitous. Even so, this comparison did not emerge haphazardly: I made the strategic decision to compile and analyze a nearly comprehensive collection of premodern Jewish, Christian, and Islamic normative sources on the food of religious foreigners, with an eye toward exploring every insightful comparison I discovered. I then selected for inclusion in my dissertation, book, and related articles those sources and comparisons that I considered to yield the most valuable insights. There were also, of course, stages to the selection process that long predate the dissertation research phase. The initial selection was to pursue graduate work on the comparative study of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic law, a choice I made several years before I stumbled upon what would ultimately become the topic of my dissertation research. That career choice was motivated in part by my interest in relationships among and attitudes toward members of distinct religious communities. The subsequent decision to focus my research on foreign food restrictions as a means of understanding these relationships and attitudes stems at least as much from my love of cooking and of sharing meals with diverse friends. Additional factors contributing to the selection of my research project include the fact that this topic was narrow enough to make a comprehensive study feasible and the sense that conclusions drawn from this data set would shed light on broader dynamics in interreligious relationships. Ultimately, however, I chose my ‘tertium comparationis’ because it passed the cocktail party test: friends and acquaintances expressed far more interest in the question, ‘Who aren’t you supposed to eat with, and why?’ than other research questions I considered. The advice I would offer to aspiring comparativists is to train deeply in your chosen religious traditions and then to find a question that excites both you and those whose opinion you respect. Freiberger distinguishes between the operations of description, juxtaposition, and redescription. I recall as a graduate student being deeply impressed by the methodological neatness of Barbara Holdrege’s Veda and Torah (Holdrege 1996), which does just that: it devotes separate chapters to Hindu and Jewish sources before juxtaposing and, ultimately, redescribing them. Even so, I found this approach to be unduly artificial for the presentation of my own findings. Burton Mack, drawing on the ideas of Jonathan Z. Smith, properly cautions that the ‘redescription’ that emerges from comparison must be grounded in the kind of careful, context-specific analysis known as ‘thick description’ (Mack 1996, pp. 256–58). This does not mean, however, that one must refrain from introducing insights derived from comparison until a later moment in one’s presentation of findings. I prefer instead to integrate comparative insights wherever they might help my audience to better understand the material at hand. So, for example, I refer back to Augustine while introducing the ideas of al-Murtad. a¯ in Section2 and, in Section4, I use al-Murta d. a’s¯ work to illuminate the ideas expressed by Agobard. My initial description of Augustine in Section1 also draws upon a typology of impurity that stems from the taxonomic comparison of pre-Christian and non-Christian sources. In this case, I lay out a rectification of prior theories of impurity before even beginning to describe my sources, and I use that description to illustrate the value of this rectification (on which, see also (Freidenreich 2010)). Religions 2018, 9, 44 12 of 13

The presentation of findings from comparative research ought to reflect the most recent redescription of one’s sources and the most recent rectification (or invention) of one’s theoretical categories. This is true even if, for one reason or another, the comparativist chooses to initially describe some sources without reference to the role that comparison played in the process of interpreting them. Indeed, I sometimes present my findings without reference to comparison at all: my most detailed treatment of al-Murtad. a’s¯ ideas about the impurity of non-Muslims, for example, makes no reference to Augustine (Freidenreich 2011b). Within the research phase of the comparative process, I find that Freiberger’s methodical operations function as an ongoing, multifactorial feedback loop. As I discover new material, I compare it to sources with which I am already familiar, illuminating each with the other. I frequently reinterpret sources I thought I already understood and test out new theories and arguments as I go. I can no longer recallReligions whether 2018, 9, Ix FOR initially PEER readREVIEW al-Murta d. a¯ in light of Augustine or the reverse, nor does it 3 of 13 matter: the comparison ultimately proved mutually enlightening, and in any case the outcomes of the comparativeChrist. processAugustine do notadds depend that Christians on the sequence have long in which since theand underlying for good reason research ceased takes worrying place. about Freiberger’sReligionseating delineation 2018 the, 9, xmeat FOR of PEERof the birds operationsREVIEW and rabbits that comprise whose blo theod comparative was not drained. process ‘If is perhaps helpful notthere because are a few3 of 13who it brings orderstill fear to an to inherently touch these non-linear things, they process are laughed but rather at becauseby the rest. it enables Thus that comparativists statement of and truth their—“It is not readersChrist. towhat tease Augustine enters apart theyour adds distinct mouth that elements thatChristians defiles of ahave processyou, longbut that rathersince can and what easily for comes feelgood chaotic, outreason of purely it” ceased (Matt. intuitive, worrying 15.11) or— abouthas hold simplyeating magical.over the all meatminds of in birds this matter:and rabbits [Christ] whose condemns blood was the naturenot drained. of no food ‘If perhaps that human there society are a few accepts who but stillrather fear to thetouch sins these that things, iniquity they commits’are laughed (Contra at by the Faustum rest. Thus 32.13, that ( Augustinestatement of 1891 truth, —pp.“It 771is not–73 )). 9. Nextwhat StepsHere enters in again, Developing your Augustine mouth a Comparativethat interprets defiles theyou, Methodology New but Testamentrather inwhat the as comes Study safegu out ofarding Religion of it” against (Matt. offensive15.11)—has defilement hold Jonathanoveralone. all minds Z. Christianity, Smith in this memorably matter: in short, [Christ] captured reckons condemns no the foods methodological the polluted nature orof questionnoimpure; food thatthe that teachingshuman faces comparativesociety of Christ, accepts Paul, but and scholarship:ratherthe‘ Is apostles the comparison sins are that an thoroughly enterprise iniquity of commits’ consistent; magic or science? ( Contra Manichean’( Smith Faustum charges 1982 32.13,, p. against 22, ( emphasisAugustine Christians original). 1891 and, pp. In their that771 Bible–73)). are essay, J.Here Z.baseless; Smith again, offers andAugustine onethe ofve the ryinterprets inability two typologies the of ManicheansNew that Testament underpins to interpret as Olver safegu Freiberger’sscripturearding against properly discussion offensive further of modes defilementdemonstrates of comparison;alone.their Christianity, willful my own folly. initial in short, foray reckons into the no field foods of comparative polluted or religion impure; (Freidenreich the teachings 2004 of Christ,) offers Paul, the and other. Freibergerthe apostlesAugustine’s improves are thoroughly oninterpretation these works consistent; of with the his Manichean Apostolic elegant distillation chargesDecree’s againstreferences of the most Christians to promising blood and and modes their strangled Bible of aremeat, comparisonbaseless;however, as taxonomicand is the illogical. ve andry inability illuminative.The bishop of Manicheans does Freiberger’s not, after to interpret terminology all, regard scripture the for Decree’s the properly distinct prohibitions operationsfurther demonstrates against that eating comprisetheirfood the willful comparative offered folly. to idols process or engaging is also quite in illicit helpful. sexualForeigners activity and as Theirtemporary Food seeks injunctions. to demonstrate These forbidden that ‘understandingactsAugustine’s remain sources deeply interpretation from defiling multiple of offenses, the traditions Apostolic and the helps Decree’s Apostolic us understand references Decree the makesto blood norms no and of distinction anystrangled single among meat, its traditionhowever, morevarious clearly’ is prohibitio illogical. (Freidenreich ns.The Augustine’s bishop 2011a does, p.reading not, xii). after Freiberger of theall, Apostolicregard provides the Decree Decree’s the vocabulary would prohibitions also to have explain against shockedhow eating bishops this book’sfoodin offered illuminativethe Eastern to idols Roman comparisons or engaging Empire: do they in so illicit and,saw sexualno likewise, conflict activityhow between itsas temporary taxonomic Christ’s teachings injunctions. comparisons and These the yield Decree’s forbidden the blood theoreticalactstaboos, insightsremain which deeply summarized retained defiling above.their offenses, force in and the thevarious Apostolic non-Latin Decree Churches makes through no distinctionout the Middle among Ages. its I amvariousAugustine’s struck, prohibitio however, predecessorsns. by Augustine’s the brevity in the reading of Latin Freiberger’s West of the also Apostolic discussion understood Decree of the the would act Decree of juxtapositionalso as haveforbidding shocked despite Christians bishops in the factin that theall thisEasterneras is,from as Roman heconsuming observes, Empire: blood ‘the they most ( Freidenreichsaw essential no conflict operation 2011a between, p. of95 Christ’s, a n. comparative 28, p. teachings 104, n. study’. 5 ).and the The Decree’s present blood articletaboos, also gives whichAugustine’s this operationretained unprecedented their short force shrift. in Thisinterpretation the crucial various act non of remains, the-Latin Apostolic ifChurches not magical, Decree, through then inspired simplyout the by intuitive. hisMiddle need Ages.to refute There must,Augustine’sManichean however, predecessors arguments,be patterns in of becamethe best Latin practice normative West among also withinunderstood comparativist Latin the Christendom scholars Decree ofas religionforbidding and continuesthat Christians can be to shapein identified,all erasCatholic, just from as prior consuming Protestant, scholarship blood and identified some (Freidenreich academic best practices 2011a understandings, (and p. 95 quite, n. 28, a fewp. of 104 poor this, n. practices)biblical 5). text. with The respect widespread to modesacceptance ofAugustine’s comparison. of Augustine’s unprecedented I would love interpretat to interpretation see Freiberger—or,ion may of stem the perhaps, Apostolicin part from a buddingDecree, cultural inspired comparativist—devote dynamics by his within need theto refute Western an entireManichean articleMediterrean to analyzing arguments, region, the where became juxtapositions it seems normative that that blood appear within was in Latin works already Christendom of an comparative accepted and part religion continuesof the published Christian to shape diet at withinCatholic, thethe past turn decade Protestant, of the or fifth two. andcentury. Which some techniques Augustine’s academic do comparativistspersonalunderstandings authority employ, of surely this and biblical helped, what are text.as thedid The merits the widespreadneatn andess of the drawbacksacceptanceline of each?he drewof Augustine’s A studybetween of juxtapositions interpretatCatholic andion within Manicheanmay stem taxonomic in food part from comparisonspractices. cultural From woulddynamics an exegetical prove within especially andthe Western normative valuable,Mediterreanperspective, as the conclusions region, of course, where derived what it seems frommakes that this Augustine’s blood mode was of comparisonagainst already-the an- grain restaccepted entirely reading part on of of theActs the similarities Christianso persuasive diet isat his and differencestheuse turn of of identifiedanother the fifth passage throughcentury. from juxtaposition.Augustine’s scripture personal Analysis—the words authority of illuminative of Christ, surely juxtapositions nohelped, less— asas did a would prooftext the neatn also toess be clinch of the his usefulline to practionersargument. he drew betweenOne of this could mode. Catholic easily A survey conclude,and focusingManichean as many on thefood have methodology practices. done over From of the comparative ancenturies, exegetical juxtapositionthat and Augustine normative offers no innovation at all. would,perspective, by necessity, of focuscourse, primarily what makes on the Augustine’s presentation against phase-the of-grain the research reading process, of Acts so but persuasive it would is his likely sheduse of light another on effective passage techniques from scripture for juxtaposing—the words comparands of Christ, in no the less analysis—as a phase prooftext as well. to clinch his argument.2. Jewish One and could Christian easily Foods conclude, are Impure! as many have done over the centuries, that Augustine offers Conflictsno ofinnovation Interest:ʿAlī b.The atal -all. authorḤusayn, declares a leading no conflict Imām ofī interest.Shiʿi jurist known as al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 1044), surely never heard of Augustine of Hippo. He too, however, engaged in the Augustinian project that Paula References2. Jewish and Christian Foods are Impure! Fredriksen aptly describes as ‘scriptural reclamation’ (Fredriksen 1996, p. 44), in this case a contest al-Murtad. a,¯withʿAl ¯ıīSunni b.b. al-Hal-. Ḥauthoritiesusaynusayn, al-Shar a leading over¯ıf. 1985. the Im Al-Intisproperāmī .Shiar¯ meaning.ʿ Beirut:i jurist D knownofar¯ the al-Ad Qur. aswa¯ ʾal.an.-Shar Amongīf al-Murta the manyḍā (d. statements 1044), surely whose neverdistinctly heard ofShi Augustineʿi interpretation of Hippo. al-Murta He too,ḍā however,defends in engaged his Inti ṣinār theis, ‘the Augustinian food of those project who that were Paula given Fredriksenthe Book aptly is permitted describes to as you’ ‘scriptural (Q. 5.5). reclamation’ Al-Murtaḍā (addreFredriksensses this 1996 verse, p. 44about), in thisJewish case and a contes Christiant withfood Sunni in authorities two separate over contexts; the proper in meaning both cases of the al-Murta Qurʾan.ḍā ,Among like Augustine, the many statements draws on scripturalwhose distinctlyprooftexts Shiʿ toi interpretation demonstrate thatal-Murta the trueḍā defends meaning in of his the Inti contestedṣār is, ‘the verse food is of not those as it who appears. were given the BookSunnis is permitted consistently to you’ interpr (Q. 5.5).et Qur Alʾ-anMurta 5.5 asḍā permittingaddresses thisMuslims verse to about consume Jewish the and meat Christian of animals foodslaughtered in two separate by Jews contexts;and Christians, in both an casesinterpretation al-Murta supportedḍā, like Augustine, by the fact drawsthat the on previous scriptural verses prooftextsalso address to demonstrate permitted thatand theforbidden true meaning meat ( Freidenreichof the contested 2011a verse, pp. is 138 not– 56).as it Over appears. the course of the ninthSunnis through consistently eleventh interpr centurieset Qur C.E.,ʾan however,5.5 as permitting Shiʿi authorities Muslims increasingly to consume challengedthe meat of theanimals validity slaughteredof slaughter by Jews performed and Christians, by non an-Muslims interpretation (Freidenreich supported 2011a by the, pp. fact 158 that–62; the 2011bprevious, pp. verses 58–69). alsoAl address-Murta ḍpermittedā, drawing and on forbiddenearlier Shi meatʿi arguments, (Freidenreich asserts 2011a that, versepp. 138 5.5–56). cannot Over refer the tocou meatrse of because the ninthelsewhere through the eleventh Qurʾan centuries declares C.E., ‘Do nothowever, eat [meat] Shiʿ ifrom authorities that over increasingly which the challengedname of God the has validity not been of mentioned slaughter ’ performed (Q. 6.121). by Jewish non - andMuslims Christian (Freidenreich butchers, al2011a-Murta, pp.ḍā claims,158–62; do 2011b not , typically pp. 58– inv69).oke Al-God’sMurta ḍname,ā, drawing and when on earlier they do Shi ‘theyʿi arguments, actually invoke asserts other that versethan God,5.5 cannot exalted refer be He, to meat because because they do elsewherenot know the God Qur ʾonan accountdeclares of‘Do their not unbeliefeat [meat] (kufr from)’ (althat-Murta over ḍwhichā 1985 the, p. name 189). ofIf GodJews has and not Christians been mentionedtruly understood’ (Q. 6.121). God, Jewish after andall, they Christian would butchers, follow the al divine-Murta teachingsḍā claims, revealed do not by typically Muḥammad invoke and God’s name, and when they do ‘they actually invoke other than God, exalted be He, because they do

not know God on account of their unbelief (kufr)’ (al-Murtaḍā 1985, p. 189). If Jews and Christians truly understood God, after all, they would follow the divine teachings revealed by Muḥammad and

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13

Religions 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13 acts remain deeply defiling offenses, and the Apostolic Decree makes no distinction among its Augustine. 1891. Contra Faustum. Edited by Joseph Zycha. Vienna: Tempsky. various prohibitions. Augustine’s reading of the Apostolic Decree would also have shocked bishops Christ. Augustine adds that Christians have longBerger, since Peterand for L. 1967.goodThe reason Sacred ceased Canopy: worrying Elements of about a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City: Doubleday.in the Eastern Roman Empire: they saw no conflict between Christ’s teachings and the Decree’s blood eating the meat of birds and rabbits whose bloodJos wasé Ignacio not drained. Cabezón, ‘If ed. perhaps 1998. Scholasticism: there are Cross-Culturala few who and Comparative Perspectives. Albany: Statetaboos, University which retained their force in the various non-Latin Churches throughout the Middle Ages. still fear to touch these things, they are laughed at by theof Newrest. YorkThus Press. that statement of truth—“It is not Augustine’s predecessors in the Latin West also understood the Decree as forbidding Christians in what enters your mouth that defiles you, but ratherCohen, what Jeremy. comes 1999. outLiving of it” Letters (Matt. of 15.11) the Law:—has Ideas hold of the Jew in Medieval Christianity. Berkeley:all University eras from of consuming blood (Freidenreich 2011a, p. 95, n. 28, p. 104, n. 5). over all minds in this matter: [Christ] condemns the natureCalifornia of no Press. food that human society accepts but Augustine’s unprecedented interpretation of the Apostolic Decree, inspired by his need to refute rather the sins that iniquity commits’ (ContraDouglas, Faustum Mary. 32.13, 1966. (AugustinePurity and Danger: 1891, pp. An Analysis771–73) of). Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London:Manichean Routledge &arguments, became normative within Latin Christendom and continues to shape Here again, Augustine interprets the New TestamentKeegan as safegu Paul.arding against offensive defilement Catholic, Protestant, and some academic understandings of this biblical text. The widespread alone. Christianity, in short, reckons no foods pollutedFredriksen, or impure; Paula. 1996. the teachings Divine Justice of Christ, and Human Paul, Freedom: and Augustine on Jews and Judaism, 392–398.acceptance In From of Augustine’s interpretation may stem in part from cultural dynamics within the Western the apostles are thoroughly consistent; Manichean chargesWitness to against Witchcraft: Christians Jews and and Judaism their in Medieval Bible are Christian Thought. Edited by Jeremy Cohen.Mediterrean Wiesbaden: region, where it seems that blood was already an accepted part of the Christian diet at Harrassowitz, pp. 29–54. baseless; and the very inability of Manicheans to interpret scripture properly further demonstrates the turn of the fifth century. Augustine’s personal authority surely helped, as did the neatness of the Freiberger, Oliver. 2014. Comparing Otherings: Notes on David Freidenreich’s Comparative Method. Unpublished conference their willful folly. line he drew between Catholic and Manichean food practices. From an exegetical and normative paper; Atlanta: American Academy of Religion. Augustine’s interpretation of the Apostolic Decree’s references to blood and strangled meat, perspective, of course, what makes Augustine’s against-the-grain reading of Acts so persuasive is his Freidenreich, David M. 2004. Comparisons Compared: A Methodological Survey of Comparisons of Religion from however, is illogical. The bishop does not, after all, regard the Decree’s prohibitions against eating use of another passage from scripture—the words of Christ, no less—as a prooftext to clinch his ‘A Magic Dwells’ to A Magic Still Dwells. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 16: 80–101. [CrossRef] food offered to idols or engaging in illicit sexual activity as temporary injunctions. These forbidden argument. One could easily conclude, as many have done over the centuries, that Augustine offers Freidenreich, David M. 2010. Holiness and Impurity in the Torah and the Quran: Differences within a Common no innovation at all. acts remain deeply defiling offenses, and the ApostolicTypology. DecreeComparative makes Islamic no distinction Studies 6: 5–22. among [CrossRef its ] various prohibitions. Augustine’s reading of the ApostolicFreidenreich, Decree David would M. 2011a. alsoForeigners have shocked and Their bishops Food: Constructing Otherness in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Law. 2. Jewish and Christian Foods are Impure! in the Eastern Roman Empire: they saw no conflict betweenBerkeley: Christ’s University teachings of California and thePress. Decree’s blood taboos, which retained their force in the various Freidenreich,non-Latin Churches David M. 2011b.through Theout Implications the Middle of Unbelief:Ages. Tracing the Emergence of Distinctively ShiʿAli Notionsī b. al-Ḥusayn, a leading Imāmī Shiʿi jurist known as al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 1044), surely Augustine’s predecessors in the Latin West also understoodRegarding the the Decree Food andas forbidding Impurity of Non-Muslims.Christians in Islamic Law and Society 18: 53–84. [CrossRefnever] heard of Augustine of Hippo. He too, however, engaged in the Augustinian project that Paula all eras from consuming blood (Freidenreich 2011aFreidenreich,, p. 95, n. 28, David p. M.104 2011c., n. 5). Muslims in Western Canon Law, 1000–1500. In Christian–Muslim Relations:Fredriksen A Bibliographic aptly describes as ‘scriptural reclamation’ (Fredriksen 1996, p. 44), in this case a contest Augustine’s unprecedented interpretation of the ApostolicHistory, Volume Decree, 3 (1050–1200) inspired. Editedby his by need David to Thomasrefute and Alex Mallett. Leiden: Brill, pp. 41–68.with Sunni authorities over the proper meaning of the Qurʾan. Among the many statements whose Manichean arguments, became normative withinFreidenreich, Latin Christendom David M. 2012a. and Contextualizing continues to Bread: shape An Analysis of Talmudic Discourse in Lightdistinctly of Christian Shiʿi interpretation al-Murtaḍā defends in his Intiṣār is, ‘the food of those who were given Catholic, Protestant, and some academic understandingsand Islamic of this Counterparts. biblical text.Journal The of the widespread American Academy of Religion 80: 411–33. [CrossRef]the Book is permitted to you’ (Q. 5.5). Al-Murtaḍā addresses this verse about Jewish and Christian acceptance of Augustine’s interpretation may stemFreidenreich, in part from David cultural M. dynamics 2012b. Fusion within Cooking the Western in an Islamic Milieu: Jewish and Christian Juristsfood inon twoFood separate contexts; in both cases al-Murtaḍā, like Augustine, draws on scriptural Mediterrean region, where it seems that blood was alreadyAssociated an accepted with Foreigners. part of IntheBeyond Christian Religious diet Borders: at Interaction and Intellectual Exchangeprooftexts in the Medieval to demonstrate that the true meaning of the contested verse is not as it appears. the turn of the fifth century. Augustine’s personal authorityIslamic surely World. helped, Edited as by did David the M.neatn Freidenreichess of the and Miriam Goldstein. Philadelphia: UniversitySunnis ofconsistently interpret Qurʾan 5.5 as permitting Muslims to consume the meat of animals line he drew between Catholic and Manichean food Pennsylvaniapractices. From Press, an pp. exegetical 144–60. and normative slaughtered by Jews and Christians, an interpretation supported by the fact that the previous verses Freidenreich, David M. 2014. Jews, Pagans, and Heretics in Early Medieval Canon Law. In Jews in Early perspective, of course, what makes Augustine’s against-the-grain reading of Acts so persuasive is his also address permitted and forbidden meat (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 138–56). Over the course of the Christian Law: Byzantium and the Latin West, 6th–11th Centuries. Edited by John Tolan, Nicholas de Lange, use of another passage from scripture—the words of Christ, no less—as a prooftext to clinch his ninth through eleventh centuries C.E., however, Shiʿi authorities increasingly challenged the validity Laurence Foschia and Capucine Nemo-Pekelman. Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 73–91. argument. One could easily conclude, as many have done over the centuries, that Augustine offers of slaughter performed by non-Muslims (Freidenreich 2011a, pp. 158–62; 2011b, pp. 58–69). Gauvain, Richard. 2005. Ritual Rewards: A Consideration of Three Recent Approaches to Sunni Purity Law. no innovation at all. Al-Murtaḍā, drawing on earlier Shiʿi arguments, asserts that verse 5.5 cannot refer to meat because Islamic Law and Society 12: 333–93. [CrossRef] elsewhere the Qurʾan declares ‘Do not eat [meat] from that over which the name of God has not been Holdrege, Barbara A. 1996. Veda and Torah: Transcending the Textuality of Scripture. Albany: State University of New 2. Jewish and Christian Foods are Impure! ḍ York Press. mentioned’ (Q. 6.121). Jewish and Christian butchers, al-Murta ā claims, do not typically invoke ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, a leading Imāmī Shiʿi juristKlawans, known Jonathan. as al-Shar 2000.īf alImpurity-Murta andḍā Sin(d. in1044), Ancient surely Judaism . New York: Oxford University Press.God’s name, and when they do ‘they actually invoke other than God, exalted be He, because they do never heard of Augustine of Hippo. He too, however,Kohlberg, engaged Etan. in 1985. the Non-ImAugustinianam¯ ¯ı Muslims project in that Imam¯ Paula¯ı Fiqh. Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 6:not 99–105. know God on account of their unbelief (kufr)’ (al-Murtaḍā 1985, p. 189). If Jews and Christians Fredriksen aptly describes as ‘scriptural reclamation’Mack, ( BurtonFredriksen L. 1996. 1996 On Redescribing, p. 44), in this Christian case Origins. a contesMethodt and Theory in the Study of Religion 8: 247–69.truly[ CrossRefunderstood] God, after all, they would follow the divine teachings revealed by Muḥammad and ʾ with Sunni authorities over the proper meaning Maghen,of the Qur Ze ev.an. 1999.Among Close the Encounters: many statements Some Preliminary whose Observations on the Transmission of Impurity in Early distinctly Shiʿi interpretation al-Murtaḍā defends in hisSunni Intiṣ Jurisprudence.ār is, ‘the foodIslamic of those Law andwho Society were6: given 348–92. [CrossRef] the Book is permitted to you’ (Q. 5.5). Al-MurtaḍNirenberg,ā addresses David. this 2013.verseAnti-Judaism: about Jewish The and Western Christian Tradition . New York: Norton. food in two separate contexts; in both cases Smith, al-Murta Jonathanḍā, like Z. 1982. Augustine, In Comparison draws a Magic on scriptural Dwells. In Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: prooftexts to demonstrate that the true meaning of theUniversity contested of verse Chicago is not Press, as it pp. appears. 19–35. Sunnis consistently interpret Qurʾan 5.5 as permittingSmith, Jonathan Muslims Z. 1990. to Drudgeryconsume Divine: the meat On theof Comparisonanimals of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity. slaughtered by Jews and Christians, an interpretation Chicago:supported University by the fact of Chicago that the Press. previous verses also address permitted and forbidden meat (FreidenreichSmith, Wilfred 2011a Cantwell., pp. 138 1993.–56).What Over is the Scripture? course A of Comparative the Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress. ʿ ninth through eleventh centuries C.E., however, Shi i authorities increasingly© 2018 by challenged the author. the Licensee validity MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access of slaughter performed by non-Muslims (Freidenreich 2011a, pp.article 158– distributed62; 2011b, under pp. the58– terms69). and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution Al-Murtaḍā, drawing on earlier Shiʿi arguments, asserts that verse 5.5(CC cannot BY) licenserefer to (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ meat because ). elsewhere the Qurʾan declares ‘Do not eat [meat] from that over which the name of God has not been mentioned’ (Q. 6.121). Jewish and Christian butchers, al-Murtaḍā claims, do not typically invoke God’s name, and when they do ‘they actually invoke other than God, exalted be He, because they do not know God on account of their unbelief (kufr)’ (al-Murtaḍā 1985, p. 189). If Jews and Christians truly understood God, after all, they would follow the divine teachings revealed by Muḥammad and