an extract from Food for a Future by Jon-Wynne Tyson, 1975
Few thinking people today would deny that the failure of the church to perpetuate
a living faith has been due largely to its abandonment of Christianity for Churchianity,
and many young people in particular would see the main charge against orthodox
religious teaching as being that theology, dogma and ritual have suplanted and
obscured the simple moral and spiritual directives of Jesus Christ.
This is very relevant to our theme. The churches' most blatant misrepresentation
of Jesus's directives has been in the sphere of violence. As Henry Salt wrote
in his powerful book Seventy Years Among Savages:
Religion has never befriended the cause of humaneness. Its monstrous doctrine
of eternal punishment and the torture of the damned underlies much of the barbarity
with which man has treated man; and the deep division imagined by the Church
between the human being, with his immortal soul, and with the soulless 'beasts',
has been responsible for an incalculable sum of cruelty.
However, this is not the place to argue the matter in depth; but even the Bible
(and one says 'even' for the simple reason that by selecting one's texts from
that source one can find approval for practically every good or bad thing under
the sun) starts off with God assuring mankind that He has 'given you every herb
bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which
is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat' (Genesis
i, 29). And later, with even more emphasis : 'But flesh with the life thereof,
which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat' (Genesis ix, 4).
In that direct translation of early Aramaic texts, The Essene Gospel of Peace,
Jesus himself minced no words: 'And the flesh of slain beasts in his body will
become his own tomb. For I tell you truly, he who kills, kills himself, and
whoso eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats the body of death.'
In his book The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, the late G J.Ousley offers a translation
of the original Gospel which members of the Essene community preserved from
the general corruption. Here is a version of Jesus's teachings that has not
been tampered with by the 'correctors' appointed by the ecclesiastical authorities
of Nicea. These 'editors' cut out with minute care the teachings they were disinclined
to emphasize or follow, in particular everything that might serve as an argument
against flesh-eating, such as the account of Jesus's interference on several
occasions to save animals from ill treatment, and even that interesting and
important teaching - ever prominent in eastern scriptures - of the essential
unity of all life.
The community in which Joseph and Mary lived did not slaughter a lamb to celebrate
the Feast of the Passover. Joseph and Mary, his parents, went up to Jerusalem
every year at the Feast of the Passover, and observed the feast after the manner
of their brethren, who abstained from bloodshed and the eating of flesh and
from strong drink.'
The Essene text indicates that from childhood Jesus was loving and protective
towards animals and birds. 'And to all he spake, saying: "Keep yourselves
from blood and things strangled, and from dead bodies of birds and beasts, and
from all deeds of cruelty and from all that is gotten of wrong. Think ye that
the blood of beasts and of birds will wash away sin?"' The food of John
the Baptist was the fruit of the locust tree and wild honey, and the disciples
were forbidden to eat flesh food: 'Eat that which is set before you, but of
that which is gotten by taking life, touch not, for it is not lawful to you.
And into whatsoever city ye enter and they receive you, eat such things as are
set before you without taking of life ... And in the same house remain, eating
and drinking such things as they give without shedding of blood ... Be ye therefore
considerate, be tender, be pitiful, be kind; not to your kind alone, but to
every creature which is within your care; for ye are to them as gods, to whom
they look in their needs.'
It is interesting that the story of the miracle of the loaves and fishes is
lacking in this translation. Instead there is a tale of the miracle of the bread
and the fruit, and a pitcher of water. 'And Jesus set the bread and the fruit
before them and also the water. And they did eat and drink and were filled.
And they marvelled; for each had enough to spare, and there were four thousand.'
And when Judas brings a lamb to be slain for the Passover, Jesus reproves him:
'Not by shedding innocent blood, but by living a righteous life shall ye find
the peace of God . . . Blessed are they who keep this law; for God is manifested
in all creatures. All creatures live in God, and God is hid in them... They
in every nation who defile not themselves with cruelty, who do righteousness,
love mercy, and revere all the works of God, who give succour to all that are
weak and oppressed the same are the Israel of God.'
Jesus was accused of speaking against the law when he quoted Jeremiah's words
against blood offerings and sacrifices, and he answered his critics: 'Against
Moses indeed I do not speak, nor against the law, which he permitted for the
hardness of your hearts,' continuing:
For the fruit of the trees and the seeds and of the herbs alone do I partake,
and these are changed by the spirit into my flesh and blood. Of these alone
and their like shall ye eat who believe in me and are my disciples; for of these,
in the spirit, come life and health and healing unto man ...
If these excerpts are accepted as proof of nothing more, they at least confirm
that the Bible was originally a much more comprehensive document than we have
today. It would appear there were no discrepancies between the teachings of
Jesus and the philosophy of humane vegetarianism, and it is unreasonable to
expect there to be, for Jesus is known to have been a Nazarene a pre-Christian
sect of Syrian Jews similar to the Essenes whose obedience to the Laws of Moses
took particular account of the commandment 'Thou shalt not kill.'
Their inner orders abstained from both flesh-meats and alcohol. But it is always
skating on uncertain ice to resort to lifting passages out of their context.
What must influence any responsible student concerned with the specifically
Christian attitude to cruelty is not what paragraphs may be quoted from the
Bible, nor what the interpretations of churchmen may be, but the whole spirit
and tenor of Jesus's life so far as we are able to judge it from the texts that
have come down to us. Whatever his personal failings and inconsistencies may
have been, Jesus Christ was clearly a man who preached non-violence. The extent
to which he was able to give attention to the matter of man's violence to other
species is not known to us, and it may well be that he found quite enough to
do in his short life to convince human beings of the basics of better conduct
between themselves. 2000 years later, with the spade work of theory having long
been completed, it is easier for us to broaden our concern, which is presumably
precisely what Jesus and other great teachers have always expected their 'flocks'
to do. Because few of them produced a specific Animals' Charter, we have no
right to assume that the lower orders of creation would have been excluded from
their compassion. How much more strange had that been the case! 'I say unto
you, any cruelty or suffering you may wish to inflict upon animals, this you
may do.' It somehow sounds unlikely.