Comparison of Humans to Animals in 2 Peter 2,10b-22 111 In addition to these ways of comparing humans with pigs that are similar to the ways they are compared with dogs, humans are also compared with pigs in preferring to live in dirt. In Republic 535E Plato says of someone who does not mind being found ignorant that he rolls in the mud of ignorance like a pig (qhrivon u{eion) (cf. Laws 819D). In Ag. 144-145 Philo says that Moses compares sophists to swine because they are at home in a mode of life that is thick and muddy and in all that is most ugly. In Spec. Leg. 148 he says that desire like a pig rejoices to make its home in the mire. And Musonius Rufus speaks (12, Lutz 86-87) of humans as being like swine and rejoicing in their own vileness. See also Horace, Epistles 1.2.26; 2.2.75; Epictetus 4.11.11, 29, 31. This is close to the comparison implied in 2 Peter, but lacks the specific idea of returning to the mud after having been washed. As is the case with comparison of humans to dogs, humans are sometimes compared with pigs without specifying the negative behavior of the pigs that the comparison presumes. Very likely the aggressiveness, shamelessness and liking for dirt are at least part of the basis for this. Thus Prov 11,22 says that a beautiful woman without good sense is like a gold ring in a pig’s snout (36). In Pseudo-Aristotle, Physiognomica the following physical characte- ristics are said to indicate negative traits on the basis that this is true of pigs: - lips thin and hard are a sign of base breeding (811A) - a nose thick from the tip means dullness of sense (811A) - a small forehead means stupidity (811B) - eyebrows that droop on the nasal and rise on the temporal side indicate silliness (812B). c) Comparison of humans to both dogs and pigs In view of the similar ways humans are compared with dogs and pigs, it is not surprising that the two are sometimes mentioned together as they are in 2 Peter (37). The 7th century BCE poet Semonides speaks of ten different types of women or wives as deriving from eight different animals along with the earth and sea (Fragment 7). Two of the animals are the pig and the dog. The wife derived from the pig is dirty and eats too much. She lies in mud (borborw) throughout her house and wallows (kulivndetai) in it. She sits on a v/ dunghill and grows fat. The wife derived from the dog wants to stick her nose in everything and barks incessantly. Later the wife derived from the sea is said at times to be as ferocious as a dog with puppies. In Matt 7,6 Jesus says, “Do not give what is holy to dogs; and do not throw your pearls before swine (coivrwn), or they will trample them under foot and turn and maul you” (38). Here the people referred to as dogs and swine are (36) KELLER (Antike Tierwelt, 1.404) mentions a couple of instances in which humans are called pigs to denigrate them. A generally negative assessment of pigs is implied by the proverb cited by Plato (Laches 196D) “any pig would know”. (37) They are sometimes mentioned together without comparing them to human beings. In the LXX of 1 Kgs 20,19; 22,38 it says that sows and dogs eat blood; only dogs are mentioned in the Hebrew text, and the former passage is 21,19. In De Animalibus Philo speaks of the wild boar and dog as well as other animals. P Oxy 840, lines 33-34 mentions waters into which dogs and pigs are thrown day and night. On dogs and pigs see GRANT, Christians and Animals, 6-7. (38) On this verse see H. VON LIPS, “Schweine füttert man, Hunde nicht – ein Versuch, das Rätsel von Matthäus 76 zu lösen”, ZNW 79 (1988) 165-186.