The Bible is devoid of reference to the domestic cat – photo Arpingstone (Wikimedia Commons)
Only large wild cats are referred to in the bible and even those seem to be barely mentioned. There is apparently no mention of domestic cats. On first glance this might seem strange, and a lot of people speculate why. I thought I would join in!
There are words in the bible for the big cats. The lion and leopard are referred to. But no domestic cats. Apparently the dog (and I presume this to be the domestic dog) is referred to 15 times and the word “dogs” 24 times (King James version of the bible)1. As there are 774,746 words in the bible1 that is not a lot! So the dog doesn’t do that well either.
For what it is worth, in the bible, four-footed animals with paws are considered unclean animals. Unclean animals are unfit for human consumption. This includes cats and dogs2 so we cannot differentiate between them on that basis.
As far as I am aware specific animals or species of animals are not referred to in the story about Noah’s Ark. Genesis says that seven pairs of each of the clean animals and one pair of each of the unclean animals and birds and seven pairs of clean birds where shipped. That doesn’t help us figure out why there are no domestic cats in the bible.
Just to remind ourselves; it is thought that wild cats were first domesticated or perhaps tamed in the best word (by mutual arrangement) about 9,000 years ago in Cyprus. The Egyptians domesticated the African wildcat some 2,000 BC so the cat was well and truly domesticated at the time of Christ.
One major factor that I feel is relevant for not mentioning the domestic cat in the bible is because it was written a long time after the events. Exactly how long seems to be in dispute. Some experts say hundreds of years but for example the Gospel according to Luke was written it is thought by Luke. But it is also thought that he was was not an eye-witness of Jesus’ ministry and that his version of events came in part from Mark. In fact there is a great deal of repetition between Mark, Luke and Mathew in the New Testament. So when Mark did not mention the domestic cat neither would Luke.
…(dates) composition of the gospel to the early 60s, while higher criticism dates it to the later decades of the 1st century3.
On my reckoning that means this gospel (as an example) was written some 60 years after Jesus’s death when he was about 30 years of age4.
To put that into perspective it is like me writing about about events in 1950 without first hand experience (The Gospel of Luke is a secondary source based on earlier accounts of the life of Jesus3). The date of this post is June 2010.
Without any clear information and on the basis that the most common sense and obvious answer is probably the correct answer it becomes reasonable to argue that the reason why the domestic cat is not mentioned is because the account is a bit like an historical novel. Under these circumstances the broader picture is discussed but not fine detail to the point where domestic cats need be mentioned. They have no significance in the stories of the bible.
The domestic dog is mentioned in the bible but that is probably because they were more “visible” or conspicuous and more directly of use (e.g. put to use as sheep dogs) in those harsher times. Also the word “dog” is used more often in a derogatory manner in common usage, which is still the case. That would result in it being used more frequently.
..When David approaches Goliath, Goliath asks “am I a dog that you’re coming to with sticks?” Also, raw unclean meat is to be thrown to the dogs (is this from Exodus 23)1.
The big cats, the lion particularly, were mentioned because they were very much in evidence in the wild throughout the Middle East at the time of Jesus. The lion roamed Palestine until the 16th century at which time it was extirpated. Such an imposing animal at large would demand a mention I would have thought.
The only remaining question is this: is there some sinister underlying or deliberate reason why the domestic cat was omitted from the bible? I have read that the fact that the cat cleans itself all over by licking itself is considered the work of the devil or some such bizarre theory, but I don’t think that that is significant.
Another theory is that the Israelites disliked the Egyptians. As we know the Egyptians supposedly revered the cat so this may have led to the Israelites disliking the domestic cat. Personally, this does not ring true. It certainly wouldn’t be the kind of thought process that would exist today, in my opinion, and on that basis, it wouldn’t exist then either.
Of all the above the biggest reason why there is no mention of domestic cats in the bible is because it was written many, perhaps hundreds of years after the events and the focus of the bible is people. Animals are seen as lesser creatures…which leads me to another gripe. Without wishing to be disrespectful, people who read the bible religiously as a verbatim model upon which to live life in the modern age are deluded. The principles are sound of course but reading it as a source of accurate representation of what happened and what should happen today, is unwise.
One final point may have a bearing on this matter. The bible has been translated into thousands of languages. Perhaps the best known version in the English language is the Authorized King James Version. This is a translation from the Greek text by 49 Church of England scholars. There is considerable latitude in translations. It was commenced in 1604 and completed in 16115.
In 1611 people still believed in “witches familiars”. These were a toad, hare or cat. Of these three the cat is the most firmly associated with witchcraft, particularly the black cat. It was believed that the devil appeared to a witch in one of these animals. Witches constantly confessed to this…
Could this have had an effect on the translation of the bible and be a contributing reason as to why there is no reference to domestic cat in the bible?
P.S. The Islam faith is kinder to cats..
Notes:
1. funtrivia.com
2. ucgstp.org/lit/booklets/clean/animals.html
3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke
4. jesuspolice.com/common_error.php?id=18
5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version
From Cats in the Bible to Cats Facts
Comments for | ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
I see a lot of “cognitive dissonance” in people who proclaim themselves Christian or of other religious faith, yet continue to “persecute” others who don’t believe as they do. These persecutions are in the form of hatred, disdain, and judgements that result in unjust laws that punish people for their beliefs or dis-beliefs that don’t agree with those in charge of law-making. The U.S. is a country founded on Christian principles, but look how far it’s come from anything resembling Christ consciousness.
People claiming to be Christian, kill in God’s name (those involved in abortion have been threatened and murdered), as do other religious sects in “holy” wars. There’s nothing holy about war. I bet that many Ku Klux Klan members consider themselves Christian. They torture and kill people because of the color of their skin. Wasn’t Jesus dark skinned?
The only rule I want to live by is the Golden Rule:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. It seems to cover all of our behavior, and doesn’t require a belief in any dogma, any written book such as the Bible or Koran, etc.
When a serious accident happens, and some people are saved, we hear “Thank God”! But what about those who weren’t saved? People say “Got wanted to bring them home” My housemate fell, and seriously injured her arm. She remarked “Thank God it wasn’t worse.” I commented that God must have been looking the other way to allow her to fall in the first place. She didn’t appreciate that, but didn’t know how to respond.
In my time on this planet, I’ve observed that most people are unable to think for themselves. This has come from authoritarian parenting, which can be also be referred to as “dominion” parenting. Children are taught “Do as I say, not as I do”. Children don’t learn from words, as much as what they observe. Another great dictate from the bible: “Spare the rod, and spoil the child”, which many Christians use to defend beating their children with sticks and whips. There is a popular book telling Christian parents how to do this.
Ugh! Not remembering the name, but a huge best seller with the Bible thumpers.
It’s believable that Jesus lived, and like other prophets such as Buddha, was trying to teach people about love and kindness. His miracles are like those of other people who have healed the sick, given sight to the blind, and raised the dead, but they are reviled as much as Jesus was.
Jesus loved and accepted Mary Magdalene, a prostitute. According to some historical facts, they were actually married, and she was present at the Last Supper, and became a revered teacher who traveled all over, sharing what she had learned. Many church officials sought her counsel. But these facts have been obscured, and intentionally deleted. Why? We can accurately guess that being a woman may have had something to do with it.
Women who showed their power were burned at the stake, and persecuted in the name of religion. This is our Christian legacy.
I do not follow a religion, and if I did, I would pick one that was congruent with my own behavior. Since I like to dance, I’d never be a Baptist. If we’re not raised in a religion, we have a choice to pick one as adults (or not). Many people don’t do this with logic, but from emotions manipulated by someone else.
If you look at choosing a religion, you would evaluate which one seems your most preferred to give “dominion” over your behavior. Which one will you choose to tell you how to live? Or will you choose none, since you trust yourself to make those decisions from self authority, rather than outside authority.
Since the Bible was written by “men”, it has to have a male perspective, and serves their needs, since men are unable to have a woman’s experience. Woman are to “submit to their husbands” as if men know what’s best. How illogical is this? Would Jesus put all men in charge of all women, or would men create this edict to serve themselves? Seems like a “no brainer” to me.
But again, most people have been taught to obey authority (on faith), without question. Only now, it seems a rebellion of this teaching is in process, as the masses begin to wake up to the fact that the “status quo” is meant to keep us under foot and controlled, as slaves to corrupt systems all over the world.
Many people throughout the world see animals as property or slaves, just as women and blacks were legally considered, not that long ago. I’m seeing some new awareness, but we’re still in the Dark Ages, with evil in control. Wealth is used to wield power and control the masses through media hypnosis. TV is a trance medium that people willingly subject themselves to. I consider it a highly effective religion(control) for the masses. If it could only be used to “wake” people from their sleep, but that wouldn’t serve the “masters” who benefit from the control we willingly subject ourselves to.
I haven’t watched TV most of my life, because even as a child in the 50s, I thought that most of it was inane. I still don’t have a TV, but pick and choose various programs and movies online. I refuse to be “dumbed down”, and will always question any authority, which recently includes veterinarians.
“No more groomers, no more vets, no more vaccines for my pets!” I would only take my cat to a vet if I was unable to find a remedy to administer on my own. They are revered as “gods”, like medical doctors were at one time, and still are by some older people. But the “difficult truth” is out for all to know. Some choose not to know, because it would mean that they’ve been wrong, and that’s always difficult for the ego to accept.
I want to let go of any beliefs that take away my thinking power, no matter how long I’ve consented to be under the spell.
Thank you Michael, for bringing up points for discussion that include, but may at times veer away from the direct welfare of animals.